Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1-95 RESOLUTIONWidd
-
RESOLUTION NO. 1-95
L
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATION COMMISSION'S CONSUMER
PROTECTION AND CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS FOR
CABLE TELEVISION.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1. The Council hereby adopts the Federal Communication Commission's
Consumer Protection and Customer Service Standards for cable television. A copy of the
standard is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 3rd day of January , 1995.
ATTEST lta
�t ,, /%
By: r( / "uc.�c J
Traci Paul, City Clerk
y
i ... mat i T
tr. T3 M.
a u
J
APPROVED:
By:
EXHIBIT A
Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554
'FCC 93-145
In the Matter of )
Implementation of Section 8 of )
the Cable Televisicn.Coisumer )
MM Docket No 92-263
Protection and Competition Act )
of 1992 )
Consumer Protection and Customer )
Service )
REPORT & ORDER
Adopted: March 11, 1993
Released:- April 7, 1993
By the Commission: Commissioner Marshall not participating.
Table of Contents
I• Introduction Paracraohs
1-3
II. Establishment and Implementation
of Customer Service Standards
A. Background
B. Adoption of Customer Service Standards 6_12
C. Enforcement of Customer Service Standards 13-21
D. Effective Date of Customer Service Standards 22-26
III. Customer Service Standards
A. Background 27
B. Federal Customer Service Standards 28-37
1. Definitions 38-45
2. Office Hours and
Telephone Availability 46-56
3. Installations, Outages,
And Service Calls 57-64
4. Communications, Bills and Refunds 65-68
C. Other Standards 69
IV. Administrative Procedure Act 70-71
V. Administrative Matters 72
VI. Ordering Clauses
73-'5
Appendices
•
▪ a
•
•
I. Introduction
1. By this Report & Order, the Commission implements
.Section 632 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. Sec.
632) ("Communications Act"), as amended by Section 8 of the Cable
Television Consumer Protection and C?mpetition Act of 1992
("Cable Act of 1992" or "1992 Act"). That provision governs the
establishment, implementation and enforcement of customer service
standards for cable operators nationwide. In the Notice of
Proposed Rule Making in this proceeding, the Commission solicited
public comment on issues concerning the implementation of Section
8 of the Cable Act of 1992. See Notice of Proposed Rule Making in
MM Docket No. 92-263, 7 FCC Rcd 8641 (1992) ("Notirc"), A list
of
hose parties commenting in this proceeding is attached hereto
as
"Appendix A.
2. Section 632 of the Communications Act, as amended by
Section 8 of the Cable Act of 1992, provides:
(a) FRANCHISING AUTHORITY ENFORCEMENT.- A franchising
authority may establish and enforce -
(1) customer service requirements of the cable
operator, and
(2) construction schedules and other construction -
related requirements, including construction -related
performance requirements, of the cable operator.
(b) COMMISSION STANDARDS.- The Commission shall,
within 180 days of enactment of the Cable (Act of
1992], establish standards by which cable
operators may fulfill their customer service
requirements. Such standards shall include, at a
minimum, requirements governing -
(1) cable system office hours and telephone
availability;
(2) installations, outages, and service calls; and
(3) communications between the cable operator and the
subscriber (including standards governing bills and
refunds).
1 Cable Television Consumer Protection and Co
385, Section 8, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992). Competition Act, Pub. L. ::c. _. -
1
(c) CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS AND CUSTOMER SERVICE
AGREEMENTS. -
(1) CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS.- Nothing in this title
shall be construed to prohibit any State or any
franchising authority from enacting or enforcing any
consumer protection law, to the extent not specifically
preempted by this title.
(2) CUSTOMER SERVICE REQUIREMENT AGREEMENTS.- Nothing
in this section shall be construed to preclude a
franchising authority and a cable operator from
agreeing to customer service requirements that exceed
the standards established by the Commission under
subsection (b). Nothing in this title shall be
construed -to prevent the establishment or enforcement
of any municipal law or regulation, or any State law,
concerning customer service that imposes customer
service requirements that exceed the standards set by
the Ccmmission under this section, or that addresses
matters not addressed by the standards set by the
Commission under this section.
3. As set forth in detail below, we will establish customer
service standards in the areas delineated by Section 632(b) (1)-
(3) of the Communications Act, as amended by Section 8 of the
Cable Act of 1992. These standards will become effective on a
nationwide basis on July 1, 1993. They will then be enforced by
local franchising authorities, which will be required to provide
cable operators with 90 -days written notice of their intent to so
enforce. Franchise authorities may agree with cable operators to
adopt stricter standards and may enact any state or municipal law
or regulation which imposes stricter or additional customer
service standards to those set by this Commission. Moreover, the
Commission's customer service standards do not necessarily
supersede existing customer service requirements in current
franchise agreements. Since local authorities will be enforcing
customer service requirements, this Commission will have a
limited role in enforcement matters.
II. Establishment and Implementation of
Customer Seryjce c*,_d_rd_
A. Background
4. We first address the establishment of Federal customer
service standards, the process by which customer service
standards become service requirements applicable to franchised
cable television system operators, and the enforcement of those
service obligations. We conclude that the resolution of these
issues should be guided by the key objective of Section 8 of the
3
•
1992 Act; that is, to ensure that cable operators nationwide
provide satisfactory service to their customers. In'this regard,
both the Senate and,Hcuse Committee Reports recognize that
_although franchise authorities may presently establish customer
service standards in franchise agreements, some cable operators
have nevertheless provided inconsistent and unsatisfactory levels
of customer service. The Cable Act of 1992 is intended, in
part, to address these concerns by requiring the Commission co
establish standards by which cable operators may fulfill their
customer service obligations (47 U.S.C. Sec. 632(b)) and by
enhancing the ability of local franchise authorities.to enforce
mandatory levels of customer service (47 U.S.C. Sec.:632(a)).
5. In general, comments on the establishment,
implementation and enforcement of customer service standards were
largely divided between local governments and municipalities (and
representative organizations), on the one hand,1 and cable
operators (and representative industry associations) (ort the
other. For their part, local government interests generally
favor self-executing Federal standards immediately applicable to
cable system operators. By contrast, cable interests typically
contend that franchise authorities must take affirmative action,
consistent with and limited by existing franchise agreements, to
impose and enforce customer service requirements. Most
commenting parties saw little, if any, active enforcement role
for this Commission beyond establishing Federal standards for
customer service. Because the interplay among the separate
provisions of Section 632 of the Communications Act, as amended
by the Cable Act of 1992, defines the scope of adoption and
enforcement of customer service standards, those provisions are
addressed both individually and collectively below.
B
6. In the Act of 1992 requires�we
thisCommission lonly y ntouestablish ded tcustomer
service standards that may be adopted by State and local
governments. We asked interested parties to comment 'on this
premise, on how Congress intended the customer service standard-
setting process to function, and on the specific mechanism(s)
whereby'customer "service standards" become "service
requirements" for local cable system operators. We also
solicited comment an whether customer service standards
2
102d Conte Senate Comm. on Commerce, Science and Transportation, S'. Rep. No. :02-92,
Cong., 2d Sess. at 20 (1992) ("Senate Report"); House Comm. oh Energy and
Commerce, H.A. Rep. No. 102-628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. at 34-35, 105 (1992) ("Huse
Report").
3
$ot_irp, 7 FCC Red at 8642-43, paras. 4-7.
4
.
•
•
promulgated by the Commission were in any sense self-executing
or, if not, what actions must be taken by a local franchise
authority to impose and enforce service requirements on cable
operators.
7. The National Association of Telecommunications Officers
and Advisors, al, II. ("NATOA"), filing on behalf of local
governments," maintains that the Commission -established service
standards should be self-executing and applicable to all cable
systems as of the date of adoption by the FCC withoutanyfurther
action required to be taken by franchise authorities. It
contends that the Federal customer service standards should apply
to all cable operators unless: (1) a franchise authority decides
to waive one or more of the FCC's standards in favor of less
stringent requirements;5 (2) the existing franchise agreement
already includes more stringent. Customer service standards (less
stringent standards already in place would be superseded by the
Federal standards);6 or (3) a franchise authority promulgates
more stringent or different standards pursuant to State or
municipal consumer protection laws.
8. In contrast, most owners and operators of cable
television systems, as well as the National Cable Television
Association ("NCTA") and the Community Antenna Television
Association, Inc. ("CATA"), two trade associations representing
cable owners and operators, contend that there is nothing in the
NATOA comments at 2. NATOA sug
ests required to take affirmative action toadopt the tComaission-establishedif franchise1es stanwere
dards,
"they would undoubtedly face a barrage of piecemeal_ cable industry challenges, on a
jurisdiction -by -jurisdiction basis. . . (which] would only delay the
Congress intended toe protection
gn
requiring national customereservice lstandaconsrd , and rs, nunnecessarily waste the s local goals of
resources." id at 10.
5 In such a case, NATOA would have the franchise authority
written notice of its action to the Commission which, after seeing furthers comment,
could override the decision. Id at 14. The Municipal Franchising Authorities
("MFA"), at page 6 of its comments, suggest that only franchise authorities should be
permitted to seek waivers of the FCC -established standards. However, Metropolitan
Dade County ("Dade County") disagrees that franchise authorities should have the
authority to waive the Federal standards in favor of less stringent standards.
believes that franchise authorities will be unduly pressured by cable operators to
lower standards or face piecemeal challenges. Dade County reply comments at 3.
6
�NMcomments
;AttorneysfPennsylvania, gas.,
York, oandTexas("Attorneys General")commensat5(existing
service requirements should be preempted only to the extent that they fall below the
Federal standards). These parties maintain that there is no authority in the Cable
AAlact of 1992 to grandfather less strict standards than those established by the FCC.
see City of Dallas ("Dallas") comments at 2-3 (all current customer service
requirements contained in existing franchise agreements should be grandfathered to
preserve mutually acceptable agreements already in place).
NATOA comments at 2-5.
5
•
Cable Act or its legislative history to suggest that the customer
service standards to be established by this Commission .are in any
way self-executing or will govern cable operators in the absence
of some affirmative action by franchise authoritieg to adopt them
(i.e., there is no Federal standard "by default"). In essence,
these parties interpret Section 632, as amended by the Cable Act
of 1992, as providing three alternatives for the imposition of
customer service stand,rds: (1) local adoption of the FCC -
established standards; (2) the setting of different (greater or
lesser) service standards by mutual agreement; between the
franchise authority and the cable operator; or (3) the
enactment of State or municipal consumer protection laws,
ordinances or regulations,pf "general applicability" :.(i,e., not
cable -industry specific). These commenters generally maintain
8 NCTA comments at 20. Continental Cablevision, Inc. .("Continental") believes
that the FCC's standards should not be "codified" in the Commission's rules,
highlighting the discretionary nature of franchise authorities' decision to adopt
them. Continental comments at 45, n.27. Additionally, NCTA suggests that self-
executing Federal standards would penalize chose operators that have already devoted
extensive resources to achieve high levels of customer satisfaction under existing
franchise agreements. NCTA reply comments at 9.
9 Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. ("Time Warner") and Comcast
Corporation et Al ("Cochcast") maintain that Section 632(a) of the Communica-ions Act
is an enabling provision allowing franchise authorities to adopt the FCC-estlished
standards it the existing franchise agreement would otherwise preclude such action.
They further assert that franchise authority adoption of the Federal standards is
discretionary, not mandatory. Time Warner comments at 9-10; Comcast comment: at 5-
6. However, these commenters also maintain that this authority is limited to adoption
of the Federal standards, and does not permit the amendment of existing franchise
agreements to impose standards that exceed those established by the FCC or co confer
additional enforcement powers other than those already in place in existing
agreements. See paragraph 17, infra.
10 Time warner and other commenters interpret Section 632(b) as
cable operator to fulfill customer service responsibilities by complyingrwith1theaFCC-
established standards, effectively requiring mutual consent between a cable operator
and franchise authority for deviations therefrom. Sts Time Warner reply comments at
6. Local governments, on the other hand, do not view the FCC standards to be
established under Section 632(b) as the exclusive mechanism to satisfy customer
service obligations; NATOA suggests that the Federal standards "may" be one way to
fulfill customer service requirements, but only if the franchise authority does not
require more. NATOA reply comments at 7-9.
11 These commenters believe the last clause of Section 632(c)(2) must be
directed to laws of general applicability because, they allege, any other
interpretation would have the effect of allowing unilateral imposition of higher
standards on cable operators, a result not otherwise provided for in the statute.
s&, e.g., NCTA comments at 20; CATA comments at 5-7. They additionally maintain that
if franchising authorities could unilaterally impose higher standards, the statutory
provisionforcable operator consent for the imposition of standards exceeding the
Federal model would be negated. See, e.Q., Continental comments at 48-50. :cal'
governments, on the other hand, generaily argue that neither the language of Sectior.
632 nor its legislative history indicates a Congressional intent to limit State or
local consumer protection laws to those of general applicability. See, e.a., ::.i:CA
reply comments at 9, n.5.
}
6
•
that existing customer service requi.fements in current franchise
agreements should be grandfathered. Most of these commenters
also assert that franchising author_ties must put cable operators
-on notice of the imposition of any customer service standards,
and Comcast Corporation et ("Comcast") maintains that cable
operators must be given notice and an opportunity to oppose
adoption of the Federal standards where, due to the
characteristics of an individual system and its marketplace,
implementation of those standards would adversely affect *fie
operations of the system or. require an increase in rates.i3
9. Viacom International Inc. et Al ("Viacom"), which
suggests that the Federal customer service standards be imposed
on all video programming distributors, advances the following
three-phase implementation approach: (1) immediate adoption by
the FCC of self-executing basic national standards (a national
"floor") to guarantee service quality in communities without
formal standards while more comprehensive national standards are
developed; (2) more comprehensive standards (based on existing
NCTA voluntary guidelines) adopted by the FCC, which local
authorities would be free to adopt, to become effective one year
after adoption; and (3) negotiation of standards that exceed the
FCC standar¢ at the franchise renewal or at "interim negotiation
sessions."
10. piscutaioa. As the record in this proceeding reveals,
the language of Section 632 of the Communications Act, as amended
by Section 8 of the 1992 Cable Act, does not clearly dictate the
12
+See, e.a., Cole, Raywid 6 Braverman ("CRB") comments at 3; NCTA comments at
25-27. Comcast maintains that franchise authority enforcement power is limited to
those mechanisms contained in existing franchise agreements and any changes
implemented in the context of a franchise renewal. Comcast comments at 11-12.
13 Comcast comments at 3. Comcast also maintains that franchising authorities
should be required to demonstrate the need for standards that exceed the FCC -
established standards, and should show that this need outweighs the associated costs.
Comcast would also allow cable operators to file petitions for special relief with the
Commission demonstrating that adherence to excessive customer service standards is
inconsistent with the objective of reasonable rates.
governments maintain that lengthy implementation ss at e- contrary to o. In response, tlocal
nt
of Congress to provide immediate relief for substandard customer service. ;oo ne.c.,
NATOA reply comments at 6.
14 Viacom comments at 2-5. In its reply comments Viacom emphasizes that,
unless a cable operator and franchise authority mutually agree to customer service
requirements that exceed the Federal standards, any such standards should be tustified
to or approved by this Commission. Viacom reply comments at 2. In those sit_atit^s
in which a renegotiation is not scheduled to occur within a reasonable time frame,
Viacom suggests that more stringent customer service standards should be addressed in
waiver requests to the FCC. If the Commission determines that more stringent service
standards should be imposed without negotiations, it requests that cable operators be
permitted to pass the added costs of compliance through to subscribers wit.`.c_t ':cal
rate approval. Id at 6.
7
•
precise mechanism by which
be precise
mb,customer
a consonant we believe service imple requirements to
most iswith the that utema are
for this language of the statute and
standards w Commissionscheme
cable hick to establish service
Congress'
operators nationcuide the customer executing
cableso en for n Section 632(b�i r oide
operators may• establishstandards gations of
fulfill rSery bypov1des that the
(emphasis added). , `heir customer serve which cable
(mphasis authority although Section 632 ice rtesthata l
franchisene eequthoritysalo "may establish(andstnfor that
serin requirements,
we believe that enforce"customera local
readlocal with Section this which
ex ire shouldypermits
governments to adopt standards(h
by the Commission either withexpressly permits
r by enactmentCommissof an appropriate
p the consent of exceedinghehcae established
reading all three provisiionsrtogether or regulation. udenthatble operator
Commission is required to establish baseline
standards on which local we conclude that the
e stems theygovernments may customer service
he
cable
to systems
regulate provide adequate
to ensure
and (c1 subscribers.a amege lSecl os 632(a)
preserve. the abilityAt the same time, customer
astandards ve.the ee franchising governmens to exceed
FCCistandl ds through
re 1 to rocess whentho
agree with obligations
most are deemed necessar g4}atory process
that the with
local governments y Accordingly, self-executing, service standards weand other we
establish Cay should
today should be
the difficu11. lty recognize the concerns of
egovern the promulgating uniform natiocommenters andards that
willlono er customer service obligations of regarding
nationwide.
de. We particularly acknowledger carne systems
stmaller
ter cable
systems that have limited subscriber in
systems mayimposing the FCC- regarding
systems Ihave a significantimpactrates.
As on since
Section ( ) below, however pbet on rthat these
service we believeas,discussed in
sufficiently standards that that we have
su ficiens y flexible to accommodatebthe reasonablenof cable anode°eloped
issue of to which they will be the range
adopting a flat applied. With respect
cable
observe that theregexemption respyst is the
is little consensus among cable systems, we
among the commenting
18 The legislative history supports this interpretation.
The House adopted by Congress is virtually
Committee Report on that bill states
The customer
"minimum Federal standards forto the service
Report at 37.ed customerservice thatanthe consumer
prole ti in H.R. 4850.
Report
t �4 Statement of Chairman and ingell, shall Rec. promulgate6500
service ' 1992) (statute real John Dingell, up with
House
Edward ed.Julyards -- and provides forreffres the FCC to 138 Cong, -6100
would Markey, 138 Cong. Rec. E1034 oily effective enforcement");
up with tough customer
require the FCC to establish (daily ed. April 10,entice Statementdof Chairman
universal customer 1992) (draft legislation
service standards").
8
parties as to whether suchl,pn exemption is needed16 and, if so,
how it should be designed. To the extent that the flexibility
in our standards may not accommodate some small systems without
an undue adverse impact =o subscribers, we believe that the
better approach is to encourage small systems to seek waivers of
our standards should theylconciude that one or more of those
standards is too onerous. in this regard, we will consider
small systems to be those with 1,000 or fewer subsdribers,• since
it is these cable systems that we previously have recognized `ace
special diffirfulties in meeting Federal regulatory
requirements.
12. Should local governments wish to exceed the customer
service standards we adopt today, they may do so through the
franchising process or otherwise with the consent of the cable
16 Commentln
subscribers ( g parties ranged from no blanket exemptions based on numbers of
See, e.a., the City of St. Louis reply comments at 18) to total or
partial service exemptions for systems under 15,000 subscribers (Viacom comments at 9-
11); those under 10,000 (NCTA comments at 32-33); those under 1,000 (Coalition
comments at 2-3); or those with gross revenues below 7.5 million dollars (Consortium
comments at 2-4). In addition, some commenters would permit waiver or exemption from
service requirements only for wholly owned, stand-alone systems.
comments at 16-17. ns twee, stand-
alone
� see CATH reply comments at 3-4 (distinctions between stand-
alone and multiple operator systems inappropriate because service requirements must
make financial sense on community -by -community basis).
17 Commentin range in
requests made by franchises authoritiesheir (MFAscommentsns atfrom 13-14t)1eorCC system1opeon ratorser
(NCTA reply comments at 10), to franchising authorities implementing their own small
system standards (New York State Commission on Cable Television ("NYSCCT") comments at
11-12), to exemptions by mutual agreement of the franchise authority and the cable
operator (National Telephone Cooperative Association comments at 4-5). In addition,
NCTA requests that the Commission recognize that smaller systems may be less able co
comply with all of the Federal standards, and urge franchising authorities to take
that into account when developing and applying customer service standards. NCTA
comments at 32-33.
18 When submitting such waiver re
antthesLegl cable operators should attach t e
views of the local franchising authority
a
explanation as to the costs of compliance for each ofst thend specificroveFederallled standards
for which a waiver is sought. In granting waiver requests, our preference clearly
will be to approve an alternate standard rather than waive a standard altogether.
Therefore, the system seeking a waiver of our standards should propose any alternative
standard(s) with which it could comply in the event the request is favorably
considered. The alternative standard(s) proposed should be crafted to best meet,
under the circumstances, the statutory objectives and should track, as best as
possible, the FCC -established standards. In addition, the waiver request should,
where possible, include a projected date when full compliance with the FCC standard
can be achieved
19 fl e.a.,
2021, 2033-34, recon. granted tithe-
9
7 FCC Plod 8676 (1992).
Acd
operator, or they may enact an appropriate law or regula",on.2°
In this latter regard, we find that Section 632(c) of the
Communications Act does not prevent the enactment and enforcement
.of any State or municipal law or regulation concerning consumer
protection or customer service which imposes service requirements
that exceed, or involve matters .hoc addressed by, the Federal
standards. We note that a number of commenters assert that any
such laws must be generally applicable to businesse2 in the
community -- i.e., they cannot be "cable specific." 1 in support
of this interpretation, these parties claim that Congress did not
intend for local governments to be able to "unilaterally" impose
stricter standards on cable operators. We disagree. There is
nothing in the statutory language or legislative hist:ry which
suggests that Congress meant to limit consumer protection or
customer service laws in this manner. Moreover, franchise
authorities will not be able to enact consumer protection or
customer service laws or regulations without following the
procedural requirements attendant to the political process.
Cable operators will thus have ample opportunity to present their
views and all relevant information to the local government and
the public before any such State or municipal regulation is
passed.
C. Enforcement of Customer Service Standards
13. In the Notice, we tentatively concluded that, following
the historical pattern that customer service standards have not
been imposed or enforced at the Federal level, the Cable Act of
1992 provides the Commission with no role in the" nforcement of
its own or any other customer service standards.Interested
parties were asked to comment on whether the Commission should
have any role with reg�'d to customer service once it establishes
the Federal standards.
14. Most commenters believe that Section 632 does nct
provide a direct or active role for the FCC in the enforcement of
customer service obligations. Local governments generally
suggest that local enforcement by franchise authorities is the
20 Because there is no indication that Congress intended for more stringent
requirements already included in existing franchise agreements to be relaxed as a
result of our actions today, such pre-existing franchise terms will be grandfathered
through the end of the franchise term.
21
22
23
III note 11, supra..
7 FCC Red at 8642, para. 4.
Id at 8643, para. 7.
10
•
only logical and appropriate course;26 cable interests generally
take the position that since local authorities must adopt
standards, they must enforce them consistent with existing
-franchise agreements. Virtually all commenters maintain that
local enforcement offers the flexibility necessary to properly
meet individual community needs.
15. NATOA views local authorities and this Commission as
sharing the responsibility of implementing customer service
standards. It suggests that franchising authorities would
shoulder the administrative burdens of enforcement, lncl,3:ing
setting time -frames for and overseeing local compliance,
establishinp6appropriate methods to measure cable operator
compliance, reviewing individual sub�riber complaints,
establishing penalties for violatipps, and imposing specific
billing and collection procedures. It states that franchise
authorities would be primarily responsible for enforcing the
standards and would submit written reports of their enforcement
actions tp,the FCC, which could act as a final arbiter of
disputes. In response, Continental believes that NATOA's
approach would create difficult and unnecessary administrative
burdens on the FCC, requiring increased staff and resources in cp
area where Congress has given the FCC no enforcement authority.
24 Dallas suggests
locally establishesstandards,
Dallas comments at 3-4.
25 NATOA comments at 10-13.
if the Federal standards preempt prospective or existing
then the FCC should accept and resolve all complaints.
26
Sas Alia Northwest Municipal Cable Council ("Northwest") comments at 4. Some
commenters suggest that franchise authorities should be free to establish appropriate
record-keeping requirements for cable operators in order to assess compliance. jd
Ses Alla, e.a., City of Miami Beach ("Miami Beach") comments at 8; Fairfax County
reply continents at 10 (cable operators should submit to the FCC an annual report
summarizing compliance).
27
no authority is atutorilyi each conferrednts at 6-8. an franchiseHowever, authoritiesttoental assessupenaltiesaand
fines. Continental comments at 47, n.31. In response, NATOA claims that while cable
operators generally agree that local authorities are the appropriate entities to
enforce customer service standards, by linking implementation of enforcement processes
to the franchise process, franchise authorities would not be provided meaningful
mechanisms to ensure such enforcement. NATOA reply comments at 10-13.
28 NATOA continents at 14, 25-27.
29
Id at 2, 10-14. NATOA would have the FCC retain appellate -like jurisdiction
to review local enforcement actions involving the Federal standards, in addition, it
would preclude cable operators from having direct recourse to the FCC. it would
require that, prior to Commission review of a particular complaint of a cable operator
or subscriber, a franchise authority first certify that the complaint or issue meets
jurisdictional tests for FCC review. leo note 32 infra.
30
Continental reply comments at 8-9.
�e also LATA reply comments at
11
16. Other commenters advocating some enforcement role for
the FCC would limit that role to reviewing,And, if necessary,
adjusting the Federal standards it adopts.3 As previously "
noted, Comcast maintains that special relief petitions should be
available to cable operators who can demonstrate that adherence
to excessive standards is inconsistent with the,Cable Act
objectives of reasonable rates. Similarly, Continental suggests
that while there is no formal:role for the FCC, it may interpret
the Federal standards, if questions arise, thrcgh special relief
petitions or requests for declaratory rulings. Viacom suggests
that conflicts in standards among various franchise authorities
covering geographically close or multiple franchise areas should
be resolved at the FCC or by the affected cable operator(s)• It
also maintains that the FCC should establish a complaint process
when there is o franchise authority with enforcement
jurisdiction.3
17. Most cable interests maintain that customer service
standards imposed on cable operators should be directed at
ensuring adequate levels of customer service on an aggregate
performance, system -wide basis. These commenters oppose any
individual complaint resolution process, maintaining that
enforcement mechanisms that focus on individual complaints would
result in significant administrative burdens and costs in the
pursuit of gp unattainable and illusory goal of customer service
perfection. Time Warner believes that franchise authorities
should be limited to enforcing customer service standards
pursuant to enforcement procedures that already exist in
franchise agreements, those procedures mutually agreed upon by
the franchise authority and the cable operator, or pursuant to
existing renewal provisions, contained in Section 546(c) (1) (8) of
the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. Sec. 546(c)(1)(8)), which
permit franchise authorities to consider thequality of an
31 The Chief Counsel for Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration ("USSBA"),
in its comments at 3, n.3 , suggests that the FCC issue a Notice of Inquiry after it
establishes the Federal standards to determine whether the standards need
modifications or additions.
32 Comcast comments at 10. III also Continental comments at 47. On the other
hand, NATOA suggests that in order for a cable operator or customer to obtain recourse
to the FCC, a franchise authority must first certify that the complaint or question is
appropriate for Commission review because it implicates national policy considerations
or involves a systemic and continuous pattern of conduct that can not otherwise be
resolved at the local level. NATOA comments at 9-14. les alga Fairfax County reply
comments at 8-9.
33 Viacom comments at 14-15. Viacom would also have the FCC establish a
complaint process to deal with standards that it believes should be made app:i:able to
Ail video program distributors, regardless of whether such operators are sub;ett to
the jurisdiction of local franchise authorities.
36 TCI comments at 20-21; Time warner comments at 14-15; NCTA comments at
_ 19.
L2
•
operator's service4 including complaint responsiveness and
billing practices. While some commenters suggest that no
authority is statutorily co9jerred on franchise authorities to
assess penalties and fines, others request that the FCC limit
penalties to actual subscriber losses and proh.pit punitive
damages and continuing violations assessments. These
commenters also suggest that the FCC should limit a franchise
authority's penalty powers to those instances where the cable
operator has been given an opportunity to correct a deficiency.
TCI maintains that the FCC should establish "enforcement
principles" to which franchising authorities must adhere,
including measurement (and reasonable penalties) based on
aggregate performance, due process and an opportunity to cure.38
18. NATOA asserts that the Commission should permit
franchising authorities to fashion a wide range oremedies for
noncompliance with customer service requirements." Specific
local governments vary in their comments concerning the actual
penalties that should be applied in cases of non-compliance.
Some local governments, such as the Cities of Miami Beach,
Florida, and Dallas, Texas, request that the Commission establish
(or grandfather in existing franchise agreements provisions for)
specific monetary penalties (in the form of refunds, rebates or
credits) for violations of customer service standards. The New
York State Commission on Cable Television ("NYSCCT") suggests
that, where enforcement powers are limited or unavailable to
franchise authorities under existing franchise agreements, this
Commission should make its standards immediately applicable to.
cable operators .(subject to franchise authority notification to
the cable operator) for purposes of making compliance thereunder
a legitimate subject of review at franchise renewal or to allow
franchise authorities to compel performance thj ugh local actions
for specific performance or injunctive relief.
35
Time Warner comments at 14-15.
36
les, e.e., Continental comments at 47, n.31; TCI comments at 21, n.27.
37
left, e.a., NCTA comments at 31-32; TCI comments at 21.
38 TCI comments at 18-22.
39 NATOA comments at 27. NATOA also requests
permitted to obtain, in addition to a performance
that franchise fcificrinfos be
regarding individual subscriber complaintsto the cable operator. Itbelievesmthatn
such information will assist local franchise authorities to monitor compliance and
arrive at effective enforcement mechanisms. NATOA reply comments at 12, n. 8.
40 NYSCCT comments at 6-7. ill also
states that NYSCCT's plan for the impositionFofActheents FCC standardsat 12.nfor ssomeepurposes
but not others is unworkable, highlights the difficulty of enforcing standards for
which no prescribed penalties exist for noncompliance, and confuses the issue :f local
adoption of the Commission's standards with amending existing cable franchises. :CI
13
•
19.
as amended • Sectio
as
current ed11ytSe_t_on 8 of he 699 a °r the Act, preserves
�'e uth Cable prcee_v CommunicationsAct,
service requirements of of a franchise authority � es the
Section (a) express) cable operator." enforce the customer
on 532 cce
establish and enforce" customereservs ice "at requirements
construction
•Schedules• Section 632(b),qulrlineat and
authority may
this in establishingsein delineating
Commission with no specific
service roandardsg providers
it does not speCl�ic enforcement
btar the responsibility
that Congress intended-forre. As a .ion to,
addition, of enforcing thethe Candi
we believe that as a new FCC esion to
requirements can be enforced mostactical matter,standards. *�
reon a
requirements
whereefficientlycust°mer service
oncurloca leveleldisuch enforcement historically
ce
ccurre. we do Accordingly, we concludehteorusto e has
standardsaisewe pt today should be thatothe customer ranchis
to effectuate However, consistent enforced by local franchise
the reforms mandated with our overall anchise
the authorityby the 1992 obligation
retainthtt undermine the to address, as necessary,systemic
Act, we
the statutory objectives, systemic
abuses
ervice
requirement20. s a general principle, specific customer
enforcement mechanisms and
be
determined by the franchise authoriti processes are bsts lit
to cable operators upon notification.
existing‘JP g�' and will be applicable
franchise agreements may prohibit of anchisethe nauthority
enforcement of customer service standards
preempted byothe Federal statute. such
preempted
to enforce the FCC standards may Provisions are
A franchise authority that
rules and principles adopted herein
the franchise psi a y doa so unilaterally
to the
implementfroiseaagreement to theand ess uyirtdesir F
enforcement of extent necessary or desire
ableto
requirements. Of course the FCC's customer
service requirements course,
franchise authorities ma e's°
service agreement whicher pursuant to the of ae enforceexisting
provide for effective enforcement; fo an ;
enforcement; with
reply comments at 5-6.
41 We decline
l
customer service decline
eano susjectsunfranchised video
chustomer
supports standards
da local suggested
doby Viacom. Neithrogramer
r distributors to
histonchised p enforcement ofhsu hhe andards war ere and
and impraced program distributors tofs such standards iswstu regard toy
Of course and we believepthat such an approachmnunnecessary
protection or customer � nothing herein prevents
service laws applicable to the enforcement of local consumer
42 such service
necessarily emphasize that the Commission Providers,
C note supersede customer s resents service
�• Of course service requirements in existing
do not
FCC note 20, customer , should the franchise authority
g franchisetagreements.
the franchise a service requirements not meetingthese elect to enforce
agreement will be superseded. standards cent the
63 oohed in
lag discussion at para. 26,
z" ra
14
the consent of the affected cable operator; pursuant to
applicaew
ble State or municipal consumer protection or customer
or regulation; or pursuant to the franchising
process.
21. We also believe that '-
Commission establish is us unnecessary for this
requirementsorrefund genet customer service ce reporting
cable operators nationwide, y this regard,
some local to all
governments and cable operators appear etorbe satisfiedwith
various customer service enforcement mechanisms already in place.
Moreover, there is nothing in the record to indicate that State
or municipal consumer protection or customer service laws or
regulations are inappropriate to enforce customer service
requirements; in fact, such laws are often the traditional method
of local enforcement actions. In contrast, adoption of Federal
enforcement standards :ould preempt local enforcement mechanisms
and hamper effective local enforcement of customer service
requirements. Similarly, and based on the record before us, we
do not believe that it is appropriate for the Commission to
establish specific, universally applicable remedies orties
for operators that do not comply with their customer service
obligations. Local governments should be free to avail
themselves of reasonable remedies to assure compliance and
fairness to all parties. Such remedies could include, for
example, ordering credits or refunds to the system's
subscribers. Local governments are likewise free to pursue
nonmonetary forms of relief to assure customer satisfaction
including, but not limited to, local actions to compel specific
performance or performance evaluation at franchise renewal. Re
would expect that overall system -wide compliance based on
aggregate performance will be a fundamental concern to franchise
authorities,
localresolution of individuallsubscriberacomplaints thapropriate to tecannot
be resolved between the cable operator and its customer.
D.
22. In the Uat ce, we tentative)
unlikely that the Congress intended for nnoncluded changestintcuit is
stomer
service requirements to occur prior to the expiration of each
44 $es House Report at 105.
43 In this regard, we believe that it is unnecessary to re operators
to disclose to franchise authorities specific information regardingrindivideual
subscriber complaints as requested by NATOA. If a complaint to a cable operator
cannot be resolved to a customer's satisfaction, a franchise authority is not
precluded from considering individual cases brought to its attention, and may seek
that information necessary to resolve such matters.
15
Accordingly, comment was sought on the
current franchise term.46
impact of the statutory provisions on existing franchise
agreements, particularly as to whether Section 632(a) permits
franchising authorities to modify existing franchise agreements
prior to renewal. Interested parties were also asked to comment
on when, pursuant to the Cable Act of 1992, local governments may
impose new service standards and the extent to which customer
service provisions in existing franchise agreements can or should
be grandfatZered or might be superseded by the Federal service
standards.
23. As noted previously, most local governments maintain
that the FCC -established standards are self-executing and, once
effective, are immediately applicable to cable operators until a
franchise authority takes independent action imposing and
enforcing difafrrent or additional customer service
requirements. These commenters argue generally that Section
632(a), as amended by the Cable Act of 1992, changes the former
Section 632(a) (i.e., as amended by the Cable Act of 1984) by
removing any limitation as to when customu. service requirements
may be added to the terms of a franchise. They suggest that
such a plain reading of the statute comports with Congressional
objectives to immediately protect consumers, particularly ;n
areas where consumer standards are not currently in place."
24. In contrast, most cable operators contend that any new
customer service standards to be adopted by local authorities may
only be imp�lsed after the expiration of existing franchise
agreements. These commenters suggest that the imposition of
46
47
48
7 FCC Rcd at 8643, para. 7.
I
Ses, Para. 7, SUOrA.
49 Section 632(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Cable Act
of 1984, Public Law No. 98-549, 98 Stat 2780 (1984), provided in pertinent part:
(a) A franchising authority may require, g.. Dart g.L A french+se (inc1.dinq
3franchise renewal) provisions for enforcement of -
(1) customer service requirements of the cable operator; and
(2) construction schedules and other construction -related
requirements of the cable operator.
(emphasis added). As amended by the Cable Act of 1992, Section 632(a) omits the
language emphasized above.
50
, e.a., NYSCCT continents ac 6-7; Western comments at 13-14.
51 These commenters suggest
r
renewal within the next few ars,ttheret lis noth sreason t etorimpose enew s ostandardsorr
disturb existing agreements immediately. tie, e , NCTA comments at 21, 27-28
Coalition comments at 7-8. Local governments, by and large, challenge this assertion,
•
new customer service requirements in mid-term
undermines
franchise renewal expectancies and could
Clause of the United States Constitution." hat o Cable Act onst-tution." late the Contracts
chat _ does not confer They similarly argue
authoritiesto enforcement power franchise
alreadyPow on frau
sting franchise agreements."2itver than t•`.cse
to establish 5.Commenting parties suggest phase-in
thatethe o Commission may wish
systems to make the necessaryphase-in period to allow
ymew customer adjustments to achieve compliance
withtenew custom be sdeterminedrviquiremsnts. NATOA suggests that any
phneed byPacific standards by a
not toexceedopeoperators #gd until compliance can upon a showing cf
Louis suggest year). The Cities of Miami Beachcand achieved
(but 4s
ggest that a three-month phase-in might be appropriate."
Consortium also supports the
offer a specific time frame.' Coma of
u Phase-in, but does not
should be afforded to cable operators to comply ,
suggests that 12 months
P y with the Federal
maintaining that such a
contrary to the clear position is unsupported b
inadequate and that findings of Congress that by specific statutorylsofslanguage
comments at 9; cable consumers deserve immediate of A rely and is
C -TEC Communities re service are
52 Ply comments at 10.= NATOA reply
maintain ge�neralg''' NCTA comments at 27,
maintain
y that the Contracts Clause CRS comments at 17
would thus prohibits any state "law (Article Z n 3• These parties
prohibit a local impairing the obligationsnof0) of the
requirements on a franchised government
ent from unilateral)
re a rements o authority's contracts" had
y's asserted role as a These Y imposing eew to
service
imposition of new customer service re commenters further argue
the sitio ooneer, quirementsoin mid-term
as opposed th aonsenttofue
mid-term requires the consent of,
53 In this regard,
from the 1984 Act reaatheeeehat ntera maintain that although
from
-imposition of cttiner thesense
that theshe former oo franchise tecontai the 1992 Act ngf: :he
language" ndoes nchs not contain language ion ofd
renewal
"renewal agreements to nut mean that franchise authorities may' themdeletion of limiting
franchise
a agrees at 5, nimpose
Continentalreply
amend dxit
eve Commission'scCss' customer service t thei federal standards.
evidences Congress' intent to permit franchisecaut�orities6toradopeland this
se �+,
(the m , maintains standards language
("Kalamazoo"),
"), =air service authorities
to renewal). The frto
cimpiement
addrequirements pursuant ursuantttos snerad remain free
policing powers conferred in franchise a toto implement
54 agreements. xalamazooScomments or macig16a1
A
desirabili
of y of a phase-in period, but general)
effectivee. ydofeiMiami Beach comments at 3 (no more than three months following t e
y'endorse a shorter time -frame.
days after the standardser becomelce effective).SSS
requirements); St. Louis reply ce=ments a:�: (I20
55 Miami Beach,
Florida, comments at 3, n.6; St. Louis, reply
56
Consortium comments at 6. P Y comments at q
17
•
standards, with waivers available upon an appropriate showing
(ep., when additional time is. warranted for new personnel or
equipment and .0. with waiver is consistent
the interests or
_subscriters) . TCI and Time Warner suggest
language and 1 that the statutory
lan
. legislative history of the Cable Act of 1992 are
ambiguous regarding implementation, and that it would appear that
new standards could be implemented only at a franchise gran-,
modification, transfer, or renewal. Nevertheless, they assert
that they would have no objections to immediate implementation
(upon franchise au;Alority action) of the FCC -established customer
service standards.
26. Discussioq. Our decision that local franchise
authorities will enforce the self-executing Federal standards we
adopt today raises the issue of when those standards should
become effective. Virtually all commenters agree that the
customer service requirements should be phased -in under a
reasonable timetable; they disagree, however, about what the
timetable should be. We note that a. significant number of cable
systems maintain that they have already successfully implemented
servicea irements modeled after the NCTA voluntary
standards Although the standards adopted in this
azalz
more stringent than the NCTA voluntarware
inthat
the average cable system should be ably
getodcomeeintoecompliance
with our standards within three months without significant
industry disruption. Accordingly, the FCC standards will go into
effect on July 1, 1993. However, before a local government
begins enforcement of the FCC -established standards, we believe
that it is appropriate to require the franchise authority to
notify6Affected cable systems in writing of its enforcement
plans. This notification must be accomplished by certified
57
58
Comcast comments at 4.
TCI comments at 16-18; Time Warner comments at 10-11. However,
qualifies its position by stating that 11 the Federal standards adopted by the FCC
track the NCTA guidelines, a six-month phase-in period (after notice to the cable
operator) should be afforded. If the Commission varies from the NCTA standards, TCI
urges that the time given to cable operators to implement such standards "should be
significantly longer."
59
,SPS, e.c., NCTA comments at 29; TCI comments at 2; Time Warner comments at 2;
Comcast comments at 4, n.3.
60 We do not believe that our decision today raises the Constitutional
regarding contracts suggested by some commenters. note 52
supra. hequestion
nothing in the record before us to indicate that the lee
herein willsresult
in a substantial impairment of contractual relationships between local governments and
cable operators, or that those relationships in any event outweigh the significant and
legitimate public purposes underlying both the statute and our implementing
e.g., snerav Reserves Group v• Kansas Power and Light, 459 U.S. 400, 410-13
(1983) (State law created no substantial impairment to the contractual relaci_r.ship
and any impairment was justified by significant and legitimate governmencai
interests).
•
mail, and must give affec�gd cable operators 90 days notice of
the intended enforcement.
A. ackaroun
27. In the Notica, we sought comment an the specific
customer service standards to be adopted in this proceeding. We
noted that Congress suggested that the NCTA standards, which
address each of the areas required by statute to be addressed in
the Federal standards, could be used as a 6�7enchmark" by the
Commission in establishing such standards. Accordingly, the
Notice requested comment on whether the Commission should use the
NCTA standards, or some modification thereof, as a benchmark for
setting the national standards or whether it should consider some
other s�zndards. The NCTA standards were set out in the
Notica, and we asked a series of questions regarding each area
covered by the standards and further requested parties to provide
definitions for the meaning of the terms included in those
,standards. Finally, we also invited comment on other approaches
we could take, such as a series of different standards depending
on the characteristics of the cable system (e.a., age, ff}'ze or
location of the system) or a range of service minimums.'
B. Federal Customer Service Standarda
28. All of the commenters agree upon the need to develop
standards that are clearly stated and flexible enough to account
for the variety of needs, circujtances and economics of cable
systems throughout the country. While there is no consensus
61 Franchise authorities may serve enforcement notifications before the FCC
standards become'effective, but they may not begin enforcing those standards until
after they become effective Aad the cable operator has had the full 90 days' notice of
the authority's intent to enforce them.
62 an House Report at 105. However, the legislative history also discussed
several perceived shortcomings with the NOTA standards. al Id. at 34-37 (questions
whether NCTA guidelines are stringent enough); Senate Report at 20-22 (notes concerns
about the value of the NCTA standards).
63 7 FCC Rcd at 8643, para. 10.
64 The NCTA standards, in their entiret
Rcd at 8644-45 , Y, were printed in the Notice.
para. 11-15.
63 7 FCC Rcd at 8645,
para. 19.
Sue 7 FCC
66
SSS. S.Q CATA comments at 3; CRH comments at 2 (the NCTA standards, if
applied with the intended flexibility, could provide a workable national berchmar.c);
MFA comments at 16 (a single benchmark will best service the purpose of the Cabe Act
of 1992); NYSCCT comments at 9 (it is "virtually impossible to craft a set cf
19
•
regarding the appropriate substance and scope of the customer
service standards the Commission should adopt, the suggested
standards generallyfall
into two categories. First, most ;,able
operators and the two cable industry trade associations endorse
the NCTA standards with some modificatigLl, usually proposing the
inclusion of definitions for key terms. Second, NATOA proposes
a specific set of standards which are more stringent and Specific
than NCTA's and which address a greater number of issues. Most
local governments endorse the NATOA proposal.
29. The cable operators endorsing the NCTA standards argue
that they offer a workable, national benchmark which can be
tailored to meet local community needs6pnd to account for the
economics of particular cable systems. TCI suggests that the
lack of consensus as to the proper scope and content of the
•
customer service standards is a persuasive reason for the
Commission ; adopt the "well-known and widely implemented NCTA
standards." According to NCTA, the cable industry has spent
"tens of millions of dollars" to meet its standards. It further
states the total number of cable systems which applied for
certification for adopting the NCTA voluntary standards increased
from 76 in 1990 to 1,985 in 1992. These commenters argue that
since the widespread implementation of the NCTA standards,
customer service has improved and complaints have declined. Time
Warner specifically notes that the legislative history's
criticism of the industry's consumer service record reflects
standards which would service the needs of each and every community throughout the
nation", but the NCTA standards are "reasonable minimal requirements")
comments at 6 (believes that more than one federal service standard benchmarkJSSBA must be
developed for customer service standards.)
67 The NCTA standards do not contain any definitions for terms used in the
standards, but NCTA, and some cable operators, propose definitions for key terms in
their comments. In NCTA comments at 7.
68 The NATOA proposed standards includepcufc
dealing with 18 different
subject areas, including telephone and walk-in customertoers service requirements, handling
and scheduling of service calls, damaged equipment, billing and billing disputes,
franchisee employee identification and customer surveys and research. Ses NATCA reply
comments, Attachment A.
69
70
71
SES, E..a. CAH comments at 7; Comcast comments at 3.
TCi comments at 1-2.
,
•
NCTA comments at 7-8. For example, Time Warner states that its cable
systems, which serve 6.9 million subscribers, and "many cable operators t.`.rccghout the
industry" have already implemented the NCTA standards "at significant cost, :ver the
past two years." Time Warner comments at 2. CATA states that it believes :-
e
majority of its membership and NCTA's meet or exceed the NCTA standards. CATA
comments at 2.
20
problems that existed before implementation of the NCTA
standards.
30. Most local governments, on the other hand, argue that
while :he NCTA standards may provide a useful st4rtirg point,
they are neither stringent nor specific enough. Many local
governments cite the requirement in the NCTA standards that bills
be "clear, concise and undersri4ndabie" as a prime example -
vagueness cf those standards. They also argue that, by
:he
including language regarding customer service in the Cable Act cf
1992, Congress clearly in}cated that it wanted standards that
are stricter than NCTA's.
31. Consequently, the local, governments propose adoption of
different standards. While many submitted copies of their
customer service regulations, they realize that these
requiremep;s are too specific for adoption as a Federal
standard. Thus, local governments instead generally endorse_
NATOA's recommended standards. The NATOA proposal was derived
from a variety of provisions of existing franchise agreements
negotiated between cable operators and franchising authe =s
for both large and small cable systems. It differs from the
NCTA standards in three major respects: 1) the standards are :more
specific; 2) they are generally, although not always, more
stringent, and ZI they cover several areas not addressed by the
NCTA standards. For instance, in addition to addressing :he
72 Time warner comments at 7.
73
$P.4, Is, Dallas comments at 5 (while NCTA standards are acceptable, they
are incomplete and inflexible when applied co all local franchising authorities);
Fairfax County reply comments at 11 (more stringent, as well as additional standards
are needed to satisfy Congress' directive to establish effective minimum customer
service requirements); Kalamazoo comments at 2; Metropolitan Area Communications
Commission reply comments at 2-3; City of Vancouver and Clark County reply comments at
3.
73 See, eye.., Attorneys General comments at 9; NYSCCT comments at 9: St. Louis
reply comments at 13.
75 e.a•, Miami
76
$e.S, e.a., Attorneys General comments, Attachment A; City of Dallas torments,
Exhibit A; NYSCCT comments, Attachment; City of Kalamazoo comments, Attachment.
Beach comments at 4; C -TEC Communities reply comments at
77
Ses, e.a. reply comments of Anne Arundel County; Cape Coral; Cincinnati;
Fort Lauderdale; Hillsborough County; Miami; New Orleans; Portland; Rainier Cable
Commission; San Antonio; and Tallahassee.
78
79
NATOA reply comments at 15.
NATOA proposes over 40 standards, compared to NCTA which addresses
NATOA proposed standards, NATOA reply torments, Attachment A; NCTA standarbs,
Red 8644-45, paras. 11-15.
21
areas required by the statute in greater detail than the NCTA
standards do, NATOA also recommends adoption of national
standards governing notification to subscribers for routine
se-vic= ; rte, --•.^e . mechanisms ons; damaged equipment regarding
C_ service -related disputes; voluntary and involuntary
disconnections; distributions of promotional materg.1; employee
idea""'-aticn; and customer surveys and research,
32. NCTA nctes, however, that while endorsing the NATOA
standards, the local governments do not address the costs such
standards would impose on the cable operator. Furthermore, it
argues, a rigid set of nationwide standards would not work f
or
many systems and would, in fact, undegfine the efficient delivery
of cable service in many communities. Time Warner agrees,
arguing that the local governments "offer no persuasive rationale
for believing that -such standards would improve customer service"
and that "imposing a new set of standards will simply increase
costs without resulting 4n measurable increases in actual
consumer satisfaction."8' Comcast also notes that the customer
service provisions must be interpreted in a manner that is
consistent with the mandate of the Cable Act that rates be
reasonable and that costs fgoj additional services be reflected in
a cable system's rate base.
33. Continental Cablevision suggests an alternative
approach to standards generally, proposing that the Commission
adopt "performance standards" (standards which prescribe the
results that are to be achieved and which measure the effects of
a company's service on its customers) rather than content
standards (standards which dictate what is to be done, such as
the NCTA standards). Continental states that performance
standards offer several advantages: they tend to be easier to
implement, are more consumer oriented, and are cheaper to measure
(and thus generally Less costly). It believes that content
standards, on the other hand, may actually reduce the quality of
customer service because technical compliance with the standards
can be ace4.eved without achieving a beneficial impact on
customers". Further, Continental notes that the cost of
80
81
Ses NATOA reply comments at 29-30.
NCTA reply comments at 2.
82 Time Warner comments at 4-8 and reply comments at 2.
comments at 4 (tougher standards are not necessarily better standards).
also TCL reply
Comcast comments at 2.
83
84 For example, Continental states that customer service representatives may
spend less time with each customer so that more calls can be answered in order t
reduce the busy rate. While the percentage of calls that result in a busy signal
would thus be lowered, the goal of improved service may be undercut if customers get
22
implementing content standards as well as measuring compliance is
higher and is :conty that could otherwise be spent improving
customer service.
pisc"sc'cn, After carefully reviewing the " rrn-,4, we
are adopting a single set cf Federal customer service standards
which deal withspecific 2..b) .
the specs_:,, areas set out lr, Section 532 (bI . As
suggested by the legislative history of that section, 'we used the
NCTA standards as a starting point for the development cf our
Federal standards. However, we have modified and added to those
standards to take into consideration several of the problems with
the NCTA standards raised by the commenters. Most notably, we
have included definitions of key terms in the standards to help
ensure a more uniform understanding of their requirements, and
have strengthened other standards to ensure more satisfactory
customer service.
35. We note that, although all commenters urge us to adopt
flexible customer service standards, very few discussed our
proposal Abp adopt permissible ranges for each specific
standard. Those commenters that did addresseshis issue argued
that the use of ranges would not be practical. Accordingly, we
will adopt a single set of Federal standards that will be
applicable to all cable systems nationwide. We believe that
these standards can be readily met by the vast majority of cable
systems.
36. We stress, moreover, that we have built some
flexibility into each standard in order to accommodate the
different operating conditions faced by different cable
systems. Thus, for example, rather than defining "normal
business hours" as a specific number of hours per week, we have
developed a definition that relies on community standards to
ascertain the appropriate number of hours a cable operator should
less of the customer service representatives' attention when they call, which could
reduce their chance of getting their problem resolved. Continental comments at
05
86
Id at 8-15.
$n Narita, 7 FCC Rod at 8645, para. 19.
87Idd Coalition comments at 7 (large burden on small systems to track various
standards).
local standards); Fairfax County reply comments at 18 (inconsistent appli_at_:r. cf
88 In addition, as discussed earlier, our rules allow for small cable syster.s,
those with 1,000 or fewer subscribers, c5 apply to the Commission for a waive: if
compliance with one or more of our rules is too onerous for that system. !ee :a:a.
and note 18, supra.
•
23
be open for business.89 Similarly, we will not require cable
operators to.meet all standards 100 percent of the time; rather,
where appropriate, we have included a "safety net" in the
.Compliance requirements to afford greater flexibility to Cable
Operators. For instance, :he 90pe rcent compliance requirem nt
for telephone answer 'time will permitt"`
operators to fall short
the Federal standard, even.under normal operating conditions, of0
percent of the time. We believe that these provisions.will grant
cable operators sufficient leeway to satisfy the Federal
standards despite the different operating conditions they may
face.
37. While we believe that many of the points made by
Continental may be valid, we do not believe it is practical to
adopt standards that are performance based. As noted by TCI,
imposing a subjective rather than objective level of customer
Satisfaction would be very difficult to measure and would result
in fluctuating, standards and varying levels of customer
satisfaction. Accordingly, the Federal standards we adopt
today will be content based.
1. Definitions
38. In the Notice we asked for comment on whether the
Commission should provide definitions for key terms in the
Federal standards, which,?erms needed definitions, and how those
terms should be defined. The NCTA standards do not define any
terms. Almost all commenters, including NCTA,. agree that to the
extent the NCTA standards serve as a benchmark for Federal
standards, certain terms need to be defined in order to be
clearly understood and uniformly applied. The most commonly
cited terms were "normal business hours," "normal operating
conditions" and "service interruptions." Since we will also be
using these terms in the standards we adopt today, we agree that
they should be specifically defined in order to prevent
confusion.
1
a) Normal Business Hours* For purposes of the Commission's
customer service standards, the term "normal business hours"
means those hours during which most similar businesses in
the community are open to serve customers. In all cases,
"normal business hours" must include some evening hours at
least one night per week and/or some weekend hours. Normal
business hours are pertinent in regard to requirements for
the telephone availability of trained company
89
90
91
See para. 43, infra.
TCI reply comments at 3-4.
7 FCC Rcd at 8645,
para. 20.
24
representatives, walk-up service and bill paying,
installations and service calls, and repair of service
Interruptions.
39. Most cable operators and the cable industry trade
associations propose :hat "normal business hours" be defined as
General`; hours, Lie., 40 hours per week, Monday through
Friday.9' Under the NCTA standards, Supplemental hours, either
in the evening or on weekends, should be negotiated between the
cable operator and the franchising authority. The local
governments, in contrast, argue that cable is a service industry
and thus cable operators should have hours beyond general o`=' --e
hours. They assert that in order to be convenient for
subscribers who work during general office hours., cable operators
must provide service more than 40 hours per week and that some
evening and weekend hours must be included. NATOA's proposed
standards would require a cable operator's office to be staffed
to respond to the public not less than 50 hours per
eek, with at
least 9 hours per weekday and 5 hours per Saturday."
40. We agree with the local governments that cable is a
service industry and thus it is not proper to limit public access
to the cable operator's staff' to 9-5, Monday through Friday.
However, we also do not believe that it is reasonable to require
the cable operator to staff its office for prescribed days or for
prescribed hours beyond the normal work week. Our definition
strikes a balance between these two interests by requiring :he
office to be open at least one evening or weekend day to
accommodate people who work 9-5, Monday through Friday. Of
course, the cable operator may agree to have its office open
additional evening and weekend hours, as the needs of the
community warrant. Additionally, the burden imposed by many of
the standards may vary by the size of the system. For instance,
the volume of telephone calls an operator receives, as well as
installation and maintenance obligations, can be expected to vary
in some direct relationship to the number of its subscribers.
Further, the cable operator may use an agent such as a bank or
other businesses to receive bill payments from cable customers
during and outside of normal business hours. Such an
arrangement, however, will not relieve the operator of its
obligation to have its own bill payment locations open at least
during normal business hours.
41. We believe that in most cases, service businesses in
the community, including cable operators, will be open for
business at least 40 hours a week. However, we also recognize
that in some communities the normal work week may not be 40 ht,rs
92
III, e.g., TCI comments at 10.
93III NATOA
proposed standard 2, NATCA reply comments, Attachment A.
25
or may vary with the time ofare . Communities mmunities in different
regions of the country keep business hours based on local factors
such as population, demographics, 'income levels, peak demand
per -ods, seasonal employment and fluctuations in retail activity.
The definition accommodates these'd fferent situations by
.permitting cable systems to be open less than.40-hours per week
if most similar businesses in the community also -are open fewer
than 43 hours a week. •
b) Normal Ooeratina Conditions: The term "normal operating
conditions" -includes those service conditions which .are'
within the control of the cable operator. Those conditions
which are not within the control of the cable operator
include, but are not limited to, natural disasters, civil
disturbances, power outages, telephone network outages, and
severe weather. Those conditions which t ordinarily
within the control of the cable operator include, but are
not limited to, special promotions, pay-per-view events,
rate increases, regular peak or seasonal demand periods, And
maintenance or upgrade of the cable system. The definition
of normal operating conditions is relevant in assessing
compliance with telephone answer time, installations,
service calls, and repair of service interruptions.
42. Most commenters agree that it is not reasonable to
expect a cable operator to meet customer service standards
outside of normal operating conditions, such as during an
earthquake, flood, or other natural disaster. The commenters
disagree, however, on how the term "normal operating conditions"
should be defined. The cable operators contend that such things
as rate increases, enhancements or upgrades of the system, ma:or
changes in billing format, and exceptional pay-per-vieofferings
should be excluded from "normal operating conditions "" The
local governments, on the other hand, argue that those types of
situations are within the control of the cable operator and thus
should be considered to be events that occur in the normal course
of.business.`Further,'they note that compliance requirements.-
the NCTA standards must only be met 90 percent of the time -
can allow for some instances when cable operator, cannot predict
response to such things as pay-per-view events.
94 Continental maintains that strict compliance with the standards should bot be
required for abnormal conditions that are within the "partial";control-of the
operator, e.c., where the operator may be unable either to predict accurately the
increased level of demand that may ensue, or co hire and train employees f:: •:st a
few hours of short peak demand periods. Continental comments at 22.
9S
les, e c ., C -TEC Communities reply comments at 9; St. Louis reply.::rten:s at
15-16. •
•
26
•
S ,
044 E.
43. We agree with the local governments that such things as
special promotions, normal system maintenance and upgrades are
within the control of the cable operator and should not,
therefore, serve as an excuse for not complying with Federal
customer service standards. Because these events are generally
scheduled by the cable operator (e•c•, maintenance) or the
operator knows the schedule reasonably well in advance of the
event (e.a., special promotions or pay-per-view events), we do
not find it unreasonable to require the cable operator to adjust
its staffing to maintain compliance with the customer service
standards during those periods. As the local governments note,
unusually high response to a pay-per-view event or other
unforeseen occurrences can be accounted for by the leeway
provided in the compliance requirements in the Federal standards
we establish herein, as described below. We note that the
examples we list in the definition of "normal operating
conditions" are not meant to be all-inclusive and may not cover
other events within the operator's control.
c) Service Interruption: A "service interruption" means the
loss of picture or sound on one or more channels. The
definition of service interruption affects the timing of
when the cable operator must respond to a service problem.
44. The cable interests commenting in this proceeding.
generally define a "sej7ice interruption" as a loss of picture on
more than one channel. In its proposed annotation of its
standards, NCTA de#nes this term as "cable off in all television
sets in the home." The definition of this term is significant
since, as described below, a cable operator will be required to
respond more quickly to a "service interruption" than other
service problems. The local governments argue that loss of sound
and/or picture on even one channel should be defined as9A
"service interruption" which requires prompt attention.
45. We find that the loss of picture or sound on one or
more channels is a "service interruption." A subscriber is
entitled to view and hear all of the channels presented over that
system for which he or she pays. We do not believe it is
reasonable to require a subscriber to lose the picture on more
than one channel before the cable operator must takerquick action
to rectify a problem. We also believe that the sound portion of
a channel is necessary for proper viewing and it is not
unreasonable to require a cable operator to correct the loss of
sound promptly.
96
97
98
see e.a , TCI comments at 13.
NCTA comments at 14.
lee NATOA proposed standard 5(a), (b), NATOA reply comments, Attachment A.
27
2. Office Hours and Telephone Availability
A. The cable operator will maintain a local, toll-free or
collect call telephone access line which will be available
24 hours a day, seven days a week.
1. Trained company representatives will be available to
respond to telephone inquiries during normal,business hours.
2. After normal business hours, the accessline may be
answered by a service or an automated response system,
including an answering.machine. Inquiries received after
normal business hours must be responded to by a trained
company representative on the next business day.
Under normal operating conditions, telephone answer time by
a customer representative, including wait time, shall not
exceed 30 seconds from when the connection is made. If the
call needs to be transferred, .transfer time shall not exceed
30 seconds. These standards shall be met no less than
ninety percent of the time, measured on a quarterly basis.
C. The operator will not be required to acquire equipment or
perform surveys to measure compliance with the telephone
answering standards above unless an historical record of
complaints indicates a clear failure to comply.
D. Under normal operating conditions, the caller will cceive a
busy -signal less than three percent of the time.
E. Customer service center and
open at least during normal
conveniently, located.
•
bill payment locations will be
business hours and will be
46. Telephone availability. -The NCTA standards require
that company representatives be available to respond to telephone
inquiries Monday through Friday during normal business hours,
i.e., 9 am to 5 pm, and during supplemental hours on weekdays
and/or weekends, based on community needs. In the Notice we
noted that this standard does not reflect the fact that most
television viewing occurs in the evening, which has made it
difficultforcustomers to communicate with their local cable
operator. This problem was clearly recognized by the
Congress. - The legislative history included a discussion of two
surveys conducted in the last several years, one by Consumer
Reports and the other of cable subscribers in New York City. n
Both surveys indicated serious customer service problems in
is
area, finding that subscribers had considerable difficulty
99 7 FCC Acdat 8644, para. 12.
28
getting th_cu`h t0' - t ei_ edble operators, .received busy s. r.a_s
more than half -e timeM_hey cak^ e100a' =acedd or
d were
any uses, longer t`a. _-eminute.
.;,
47. Consequently, the :ticalrovernments urge the Commission
to go beyond the NCTA standard and require systems to offm
extended telephone answering hours, up to 24 hours a day.
NATOA's proposed standards require that a cable operator maintain
phone lines, either staffed or with a��.iering capabilities, s:
that there is service 24 hours a day. Most of the local
governments state that the 24 hour availability can be met with
an answering service, with a company representative responding t
the emergency calls, such as service interruptions, as �Q raptly
as possible and routine calls by the next business day.
48. Cable operators, on the other hand, express concern
about the addep,cost that would be imposed to increase telephone
availability. Continental warns that requiring extended
telephone hours, where there is not a demonstrated need, is
likely not to be cost ;ustified. it alleges that systems wou:d
face considerable expense as a result of increased labor costs
associated wiEA, overtime pay and differentials for night and
weekend work.
49. As many commenters observe, cable is clearly a 24 hour
a day service. Most, if not all, cable networks operate an a 24
hour basis, as do many local television stations carried by cable
systems. It is not unreasonable then to assume that subscribers
may be watching cable programming 24 hours a day. It is also
well documented that most television viewing is done in the
evenings. Under these circumstances, we do not think it is
unreasonable to require a cable operator to provide telephone
availability 24 hours a day.
50. We are cognizant of the costs of keeping company
representatives available on a 24 hour a day basis. In most
instances, a caller's needs outside of normal business hours can
loo
seort at 0: NATOA slocetoat 17. ,3aorCi-CCommunitiesreplycommnts at 5(complaintfbeingonhold 200o60n_es )
101 1,2, Miami Beach consents at 4; Attorneys General comments at 7;
Fairfax County reply comments at 12: New Jersey Office of Cable Television ("NJOCT")
reply comments at 7.
102
103
104
105
NATOA proposed standard 1.(b), NATOA reply comments, Attachment A.
les, e.a., Attorneys General comments at 7 n. 3: NYSCCT comments at .C.
,Ig, e.a., CATA comments at 9. j,g aenerally TC: comments at 5.
Continental comments at 24.
29