No preview available
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