Implementation of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as Amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, 51911-51922 [2018-22356]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2018 / Proposed Rules
proposed SNURs for 145 chemical
substances, the Agency also issued
direct final SNURs for these chemical
substances (83 FR 37702) (FRL–9970–
23); that action was withdrawn on
September 26, 2018 (83 FR 48546)
(FRL–9983–72) before it became
effective because of the receipt of
negative comments. EPA will address
all adverse public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule.
To submit comments, or access the
docket, please follow the detailed
instructions provided under ADDRESSES
in the Federal Register document of
August 1, 2018. If you have questions,
consult the technical person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 9
Environmental protection, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 721
Environmental protection, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: October 5, 2018.
Tala R. Henry,
Acting Director, Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2018–22399 Filed 10–12–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9 and 721
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2017–0414; FRL–9984–69]
RIN 2070–AB27
Significant New Use Rules on Certain
Chemical Substances; Reopening of
Comment Period
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of
comment period.
AGENCY:
EPA issued a proposed rule in
the Federal Register of August 17, 2018
for significant new use rules (SNURs)
for 27 chemical substances. EPA is
reopening the comment period because
it received a request to extend the
comment period but the request was
received too late to publish an extension
of the comment period before the
comment period expired.
DATES: This document reopens the
comment period for the proposed rule
until October 30, 2018. Comments,
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Oct 12, 2018
Jkt 247001
51911
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2017–0414
must be received on or before October
30, 2018.
40 CFR Part 721
Environmental protection, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Follow the detailed
instructions provided under ADDRESSES
in the Federal Register document of
August 17, 2018 (83 FR 41039) (FRL–
9981–82).
Dated: October 5, 2018.
Tala R. Henry,
Acting Director, Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ADDRESSES:
For technical information contact:
Kenneth Moss, Chemical Control
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001;
telephone number: (202) 564–9232;
email address: moss.kenneth@epa.gov.
For general information contact: The
TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422
South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY
14620; telephone number: (202) 554–
1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@
epa.gov.
This
document reopens the public comment
period established in the Federal
Register document of August 17, 2018
(83 FR 41039) (FRL–9981–82). That
document proposed SNURs for 27
chemical substances. EPA received a
request to extend the comment period
for 15 days but the request was received
too late to publish an extension of the
comment period before the comment
period expired. EPA is hereby reopening
the comment period for 15 days.
Note that in the August 17, 2018 issue
of the Federal Register including the
proposed SNURs for 27 chemical
substances, the Agency also issued
direct final SNURs for these chemical
substances (83 FR 40986) (FRL–9971–
37). As of the date of signature of this
action to reopen the comment period on
the proposed rule, that direct final rule
was in the process of being withdrawn
because of the receipt of negative
comments. EPA will address all adverse
public comments in a subsequent final
rule based on the proposed rule.
To submit comments, or access the
docket, please follow the detailed
instructions provided under ADDRESSES
in the Federal Register document of
August 17, 2018 (83 FR 41039) (FRL–
9981–82). If you have questions, consult
the technical person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 9
Environmental protection, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
[FR Doc. 2018–22400 Filed 10–12–18; 8:45 am]
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[MB Docket No. 05–311; FCC 18–131]
Implementation of the Cable
Communications Policy Act of 1984 as
Amended by the Cable Television
Consumer Protection and Competition
Act of 1992
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission seeks comment on two
cable franchising issues raised by the
remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit in Montgomery
County, Md. et al. v. FCC. The
Commission tentatively concludes that,
with limited exceptions, ‘‘cable-related,
in-kind contributions’’ required by a
franchising agreement should be treated
as ‘‘franchise fees’’ subject to the
statutory five percent cap on franchise
fees set forth in Communications Act. It
also tentatively concludes that the
mixed-use network ruling should be
applied to incumbent cable operators to
prohibit LFAs from using their video
franchising authority to regulate the
provision of most non-cable services,
including telecommunications services
and information services such as
broadband internet access service,
offered over a cable system by an
incumbent cable operator. These
tentative conclusions are intended to
promote competition by fostering parity
between incumbents and new entrants
and helping to ensure that local
franchising requirements do not
discourage cable operators from
investing in new facilities and services.
DATES: Comments for this proceeding
are due on or before November 14, 2018;
reply comments are due on or before
December 14, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by MB Docket No. 05–311, by
any of the following methods:
D Federal Communications
Commission’s Website: https://
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\15OCP1.SGM
15OCP1
51912
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2018 / Proposed Rules
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
D Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail
(although the Commission continues to
experience delays in receiving U.S.
Postal Service mail). All filings must be
addressed to the Commission’s
Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
D People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202)
418–0432.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
For
additional information, contact Kathy
Berthot, Kathy.Berthot@fcc.gov, of the
Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202)
418–7454.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
This is a
summary of the Commission’s Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
FCC 18–131, adopted on September 24,
2018 and released on September 25,
2018. The full text is available for public
inspection and copying during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference
Center, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street SW, CY–
A257, Washington, DC 20554. This
document will also be available via
ECFS (https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/).
Documents will be available
electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/
or Adobe Acrobat. Alternative formats
are available for people with disabilities
(Braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format), by sending an email to
fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432
(TTY).
This Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking does not contain
any proposed information collections
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In
addition, therefore, it does not contain
any new or modified information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees,
pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Oct 12, 2018
Jkt 247001
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. In this Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (Second FNPRM),
we address two issues raised by the
remand from the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in
Montgomery County, Md. et al. v. FCC,
which addressed challenges to rules and
guidance adopted by the Commission
governing how local franchising
authorities (LFAs) may regulate
incumbent cable operators and cable
television services. Specifically, we
tentatively conclude that we should
treat cable-related, ‘‘in-kind’’
contributions required by a franchising
agreement as ‘‘franchise fees’’ subject to
the statutory five percent cap on
franchise fees set forth in section 622 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (the Act), with limited
exceptions. We also tentatively
conclude that we should apply our prior
mixed-use network ruling to incumbent
cable operators, thus prohibiting LFAs
from using their video franchising
authority to regulate the provision of
most non-cable services, such as
broadband internet access service,
offered over a cable system by an
incumbent cable operator. We seek
comment on these tentative
conclusions, which we believe faithfully
interpret relevant statutory provisions
and will promote competition by
fostering parity between incumbents
and new entrants and helping to ensure
that local franchising requirements do
not discourage cable operators from
investing in new facilities and services.
We also seek comment on whether the
proposals and tentative conclusions
discussed in this Second FNPRM, as
well as prior Commission decisions in
this proceeding addressing LFA
regulation of cable operators, should be
applied to state-level franchising actions
and state regulations that impose
requirements on local franchising.
II. Background
2. Any entity seeking to offer ‘‘cable
service’’ as a ‘‘cable operator’’ must
comply with the cable franchising
provisions of Title VI of the
Communications Act. Section 621(b)(1)
of the Act prohibits a cable operator
from providing cable service without
first obtaining a cable franchise. Section
621(a)(1) circumscribes the power of
LFAs to award or deny such franchises.
As originally enacted by Congress as
part of the 1984 Cable Act, section
621(a)(1) simply stated that ‘‘[a]
franchising authority may award, in
accordance with the provisions of this
title, 1 or more franchises within its
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
jurisdiction.’’ In a 1990 Report to
Congress, however, the Commission
concluded that in order ‘‘[t]o encourage
more robust competition in the local
video marketplace, the Congress should
. . . forbid local franchising authorities
from unreasonably denying a franchise
to potential competitors who are ready
and able to provide service.’’ In
response to this Report, Congress
revised section 621(a)(1) in 1992 to
provide that ‘‘[a] franchising authority
may award, in accordance with the
provisions of this title, 1 or more
franchises within its jurisdiction; except
that a franchising authority may not
grant an exclusive franchise and may
not unreasonably refuse to award an
additional competitive franchise.’’
3. In 2007, finding that the existing
operation of the local franchising
process constituted an unreasonable
barrier to new entrants in the
marketplace for cable services and to
their deployment of broadband, the
Commission issued the First Report and
Order, which adopted new rules and
guidance to implement section
621(a)(1). The Commission concluded
that section 621(a)(1) prohibits not only
the ultimate unreasonable denial of a
competitive franchise application, but
also the establishment by LFAs of
procedures and other requirements that
have the effect of unreasonably
interfering with the ability of a wouldbe competitor to obtain a competitive
franchise. To eliminate unreasonable
barriers to entry into the marketplace for
cable services and to encourage
investment by new video entrants in
broadband facilities, the Commission
adopted rules and guidance construing
the meaning of ‘‘unreasonable’’ for
purposes of section 621(a)(1), including
rules and guidance governing the
treatment of certain costs and fees
charged to new entrants into the
marketplace for cable services and the
regulation of new entrants’ ‘‘mixed-use’’
networks (i.e., facilities used to provide
both cable services and non-cable
services).
4. With respect to costs and fees, the
Commission determined that unless
certain specified costs, fees, and other
compensation required by LFAs are
counted toward the statutory five
percent cap on franchise fees, an LFA’s
demand for such fees could result in an
unreasonable refusal to award a
competitive franchise to a new entrant.
Under section 622(b) of the Act, the
amount of franchise fees that an LFA
may collect from a cable operator for
any twelve-month period is limited to
five percent of the cable operator’s gross
revenues derived in such period from
the operation of the cable system to
E:\FR\FM\15OCP1.SGM
15OCP1
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2018 / Proposed Rules
provide cable services. Section 622(g)(2)
sets forth certain exclusions from the
term ‘‘franchise fee.’’ In particular,
section 622(g)(2)(D) excludes
‘‘requirements or charges incidental to
the awarding or enforcing of the
franchise, including payments for
bonds, security funds, letters of credit,
insurance, indemnification, penalties, or
liquidated damages.’’ Such ‘‘incidental’’
requirements or charges may be
assessed by an LFA without counting
toward the five percent cap. The
Commission concluded that, with
respect to franchise agreements for new
entrants, non-incidental franchiserelated costs required by LFAs must
count toward the five percent franchise
fee cap and provided guidance as to
what constitutes such non-incidental
franchise-related costs. The Commission
found that non-incidental costs include
attorney fees and consultant fees,
application or processing fees that
exceed the reasonable cost of processing
the application, acceptance fees, free or
discounted services provided to an LFA,
any requirement to lease or purchase
equipment from an LFA at prices higher
than market value, and in-kind
payments.
5. The Commission further found that
in the context of some franchise
negotiations, LFAs have required from
new entrants ‘‘in-kind’’ payments or
contributions that are unrelated to the
provision of cable services. The
Commission clarified that any requests
for in-kind contributions made by LFAs
unrelated to the provision of cable
services by a new competitive entrant
are subject to the statutory five percent
franchise fee cap.
6. Additionally, the Commission
clarified that a cable operator may not
be required to pay franchise fees on
revenues from non-cable services. As
noted above, section 622(b) provides
that the ‘‘franchise fees paid by a cable
operator with respect to any cable
system shall not exceed 5 percent of
such cable operator’s gross revenues
derived in such period from the
operation of the cable system to provide
cable services.’’ The Commission noted
that it had determined in the Cable
Modem Declaratory Ruling that an LFA
may not assess franchise fees on noncable services, such as cable modem
service, stating that ‘‘revenue from cable
modem service would not be included
in the calculation of gross revenues from
which the franchise fee ceiling is
determined.’’ Although that decision
related specifically to internet access
service revenues, the Commission
concluded that the same would be true
for other ‘‘non-cable’’ service revenues.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Oct 12, 2018
Jkt 247001
7. Regarding mixed-use networks (i.e.,
networks that provide broadband, voice
services, and other non-cable services in
addition to video programming
services), the Commission clarified that
LFAs’ jurisdiction applies only to the
provision of video programming
services over new entrants’ cable
systems. To the extent that a new
entrant provides non-cable services and/
or operates facilities that do not qualify
as a cable system, the Commission
concluded that it is unreasonable for an
LFA to refuse to award a franchise based
on issues related to such services or
facilities. The Commission further
clarified that an LFA may not use its
video franchising authority to attempt to
regulate a new entrant’s entire network
beyond the provision of cable services.
The Commission found that ‘‘the
provision of video services pursuant to
a cable franchise does not provide a
basis for customer service regulation by
local law or franchise agreement of a
cable operator’s entire network, or any
services beyond cable services.’’ The
Commission based its decision on the
common carrier exception to the
definition of ‘‘cable system’’ in section
602(7)(C) of the Act, which explicitly
states that a common carrier facility
subject to Title II is considered a cable
system only ‘‘to the extent such facility
is used in the transmission of video
programming. . . .’’ The Commission
preempted local regulations that attempt
to regulate any non-cable services
offered by new entrants, finding that
such regulations are beyond the scope of
LFAs’ authority and inconsistent with
section 602(7)(C).
8. The rules adopted in the First
Report and Order applied only to new
entrants applying for cable franchises.
Concurrently with its adoption of those
rules, the Commission issued a Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking
comment on whether to apply the
findings in the First Report and Order
to incumbent cable operators as they
negotiate renewal of their existing
franchise agreements, noting that many
of these findings also appeared germane
to existing franchisees.
9. In the Second Report and Order,
the Commission extended a number of
the rules adopted in the First Report and
Order to incumbent cable operators. The
Commission concluded that the findings
in the First Report and Order
interpreting section 622 should apply
equally to incumbents and new entrants
because Section 622 ‘‘does not
distinguish between incumbent
providers and new entrants.’’ Thus, the
Commission found that in-kind
contributions are not to be regarded as
‘‘incidental’’ and therefore must count
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51913
toward the five percent franchise fee cap
for incumbent cable operators. The
Commission further found that the
clarification that a cable operator is not
required to pay franchise fees on
revenues from non-cable services
applies to incumbent cable operators.
The Commission also determined that
its findings on mixed-use networks
provided in the First Report and Order
should apply equally to incumbents and
new entrants, noting that these findings
relied on its statutory interpretation of
‘‘cable system’’ in section 602(7)(C),
which ‘‘does not distinguish between
incumbent providers and new entrants.’’
The Commission thus clarified that
LFAs’ jurisdiction over incumbent cable
operators applies only to the provision
of cable services over cable systems and
that an LFA may not use its franchising
authority to regulate non-cable services
offered by incumbent cable operators.
10. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
subsequently issued a decision rejecting
LFA challenges to the First Report and
Order. With respect to franchise fees
charged to new entrants, the court
upheld the Commission’s listing of the
non-incidental charges that fall within
the purview of the statutory five percent
franchise fee cap, which includes inkind payments. The court found that the
Commission’s interpretation of the
phrase ‘‘incidental to’’ in section
622(g)(2)(D) of the Act was reasonable
and therefore was entitled to deference
under Chevron.
11. In 2015, the Commission issued
an order responding to several LFA
petitions for reconsideration of the
Second Report and Order. LFAs
challenged the inclusion of in-kind
payments in calculating the franchise
fee cap for incumbent cable operators,
arguing that the Commission’s findings
in the Second Report and Order give an
overly expansive scope to section
622(g)(2)(D) and expanded the
definition of in-kind payments set forth
in the First Report and Order. The
Commission disagreed, finding that the
Second Report and Order merely
extended the First Report and Order’s
conclusions regarding application of the
term ‘‘incidental’’ in section 622(g)(2)(D)
to incumbent cable operators. The
Commission also rejected LFAs’
arguments that the First Report and
Order included in the franchise fee cap
only in-kind payments that are
unrelated to cable service, not in-kind
payments that are related to cable
service. The Commission observed that
in a section entitled ‘‘Charges incidental
to the awarding or enforcing of a
franchise,’’ the First Report and Order
identified ‘‘free or discounted services
provided to an LFA’’ as one type of
E:\FR\FM\15OCP1.SGM
15OCP1
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
51914
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2018 / Proposed Rules
‘‘non-incidental’’ cost that counted
toward the franchise fee cap. The
Commission explained that in that
context, the First Report and Order was
referring to free or discounted cable
services. The Commission further found
that consistent with the First Report and
Order, the Second Report and Order
noted that non-incidental in-kind
payments must count toward the five
percent franchise fee cap for incumbent
cable operators and did not expressly
limit this requirement to in-kind
payments that are unrelated to cable
service.
12. The Order on Reconsideration also
declined to modify the conclusions in
the Second Report and Order regarding
mixed-use networks. The Commission
observed that the Second Report and
Order extended the Commission’s
findings on mixed-use networks to
incumbent cable operators, clarifying
that LFAs’ jurisdiction over incumbent
cable operators is limited to the
provision of cable services over cable
systems and that LFAs may not use their
franchising authority to regulate noncable services provided by incumbent
cable operators. The Commission
rejected the LFAs’ argument that the
legislative history of the 1984 Cable Act
indicates that they have authority over
cable systems in their provision of noncable services, explaining that while the
legislative history discusses what
constitutes a cable service, it does not
address whether localities may regulate
non-cable services provided over cable
systems.
13. In Montgomery County, the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals addressed
challenges by LFAs to the Second
Report and Order and the Order on
Reconsideration. The court rejected LFA
arguments that non-cash exactions are
not ‘‘franchise fees’’ as defined by
section 622(g)(1), noting that section
622(g)(1) defines ‘‘franchise fee’’ to
include ‘‘any tax, fee, or assessment of
any kind’’ and that the terms ‘‘tax’’ and
‘‘assessment’’ can include nonmonetary
exactions. The court found, however,
that the fact that the term ‘‘franchise
fee’’ can include in-kind contributions
‘‘does not mean that it necessarily does
include every one of them.’’ The court
concluded that the Commission failed to
offer any explanation in the Second
Report and Order or in the Order on
Reconsideration as to why section
622(g)(1) allows it to treat cable-related,
‘‘in-kind’’ exactions as franchise fees.
LFAs had claimed that the
Commission’s interpretation would
limit their ability to enforce statutory
requirements for PEG channel capacity
and for build-out obligations in lowincome areas, and the court noted that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Oct 12, 2018
Jkt 247001
the Commission’s orders did not reflect
any consideration of this LFA concern.
The court also stated that the FCC failed
to define what ‘‘in-kind’’ means. The
court therefore vacated as arbitrary and
capricious the Second Report and Order
and the Order on Reconsideration to the
extent that they treat cable-related, ‘‘inkind’’ exactions as ‘‘franchise fees’’
under section 622(g)(1). The court
directed the Commission to determine
and explain on remand to what extent
cable-related, in-kind contributions are
‘‘franchise fees’’ under the Act.
14. The court in Montgomery County
also agreed with LFAs that neither the
Second Report and Order nor the Order
on Reconsideration offer a valid
statutory basis for the application of the
mixed-use ruling to bar LFAs from
regulating the provision of nontelecommunications services by
incumbent cable operators. (The court
noted that the LFAs’ primary concern
with the mixed-use ruling is that it
would prevent them from regulating
‘‘institutional networks’’ or ‘‘I-Nets’’—
communication networks which are
constructed or operated by the cable
operator and which are generally
available only to subscribers who are
not residential customers—even though
the Act makes clear that LFAs may
regulate I-Nets. The court observed,
however, that the Commission
acknowledged that its mixed-use ruling
was not meant to prevent LFAs from
regulating I-Nets.) The court stated that
the Commission’s decision in the First
Report and Order to apply the mixeduse ruling to new entrants had been
defensible because section 602(7)(C) of
the Act expressly states that LFAs may
regulate Title II carriers only to the
extent that they provide cable services
and the Commission found that new
entrants generally are Title II carriers.
The court observed that in extending the
mixed-use ruling to incumbent cable
operators in the Second Report and
Order, the Commission merely relied on
the First Report and Order’s
interpretation of section 602(7)(C),
noting that section 602(7)(C) ‘‘does not
distinguish between incumbent
providers and new entrants.’’ The court
found, however, that this reasoning is
not an affirmative basis for the
Commission’s decision in the Second
Report and Order to apply the mixeduse ruling to incumbent cable operators
because section 602(7)(C) by its terms
applies only to Title II carriers and
‘‘many incumbent cable operators are
not Title II carriers.’’ The court further
found that the Order on Reconsideration
did not offer any statutory explanation
for the Commission’s decision to extend
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the mixed-use ruling to incumbent cable
operators. Accordingly, the court
concluded that the Commission’s
extension of the mixed-use ruling to
incumbent cable operators that are not
common carriers was arbitrary and
capricious. The court vacated the
mixed-use ruling as applied to those
incumbent cable operators and
remanded for the Commission ‘‘to set
forth a valid statutory basis, if there is
one, for the rule as so applied.’’
15. As we address the court’s remand
in this proceeding, we view the
proposals discussed below as part of the
Commission’s larger, ongoing effort to
reduce regulatory barriers to
infrastructure investment. For example,
the Commission’s open wireline and
wireless infrastructure proceedings have
advanced a number of regulatory
reforms to spur wireline and wireless
service deployment, and additional
reforms remain under consideration for
future Commission action. In the
wireline proceeding, the Commission
has already enacted numerous reforms
to our rules and procedures regarding
pole attachments, copper retirement,
and discontinuances of legacy services
that will better enable providers to
invest in next-generation networks. In
the wireless proceeding, to enable and
to speed the deployment of advanced
wireless services throughout the United
States, we revised the rules and
procedures for deployments subject to
the National Historic Preservation Act
and National Environmental Policy Act.
We also made changes to the historic
preservation review requirement for
replacement utility poles, and have
sought comment on a proposal that
would make existing infrastructure
available for additional wireless
deployments on towers that previously
have been unavailable. Similarly, with
this item, we seek to faithfully interpret
the statutory provisions at issue in a
way that preserves incentives for all
cable operators to deploy infrastructure
that can be used to provide numerous
services, including video, voice, and
broadband internet access service, to
consumers.
III. Discussion
A. Cable-Related, In-Kind Contributions
16. We tentatively conclude that we
should treat cable-related, in-kind
contributions required by LFAs from
cable operators as a condition or
requirement of a franchise agreement as
‘‘franchise fees’’ subject to the statutory
five percent franchise fee cap set forth
in section 622 of the Act, with limited
exceptions as described below. We
tentatively conclude that this
E:\FR\FM\15OCP1.SGM
15OCP1
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2018 / Proposed Rules
interpretation is most consistent with
the statutory language and legislative
history and seek comment on our
analysis.
17. Section 622(b) directs that ‘‘the
franchise fees paid by a cable operator’’
for any 12-month period ‘‘shall not
exceed 5 percent of such cable
operator’s gross revenues.’’ Section
622(g)(1) defines ‘‘franchise fee’’ broadly
to include ‘‘any tax, fee, or assessment
of any kind imposed by a franchising
authority or other governmental entity
on a cable operator . . . solely because
of their status as such.’’ The court in
Montgomery County acknowledged that
the term ‘‘franchise fee’’ can include inkind contributions, but stated that
further explanation was necessary in
order for the Commission to conclude
that cable-related, in-kind contributions
are covered within the definition. We
note that the broad definition of
‘‘franchise fee’’ in the statute covers
‘‘any kind’’ of tax, fee, or assessment,
without distinguishing between whether
it is related or unrelated to the provision
of cable service. The legislative history,
in discussing the definition of
‘‘franchise fee,’’ likewise suggests no
such distinction was intended by
Congress. The court’s decision in
Montgomery County did not disturb the
Commission’s treatment of in-kind
contributions unrelated to the provision
of cable services as franchise fees
subject to the statutory five percent cap.
We see no basis in the statute or
legislative history for distinguishing
between in-kind contributions unrelated
to the provision of cable services and
cable-related, in-kind contributions for
purposes of the five percent franchise
fee cap. If in-kind contributions
unrelated to the provision of cable
services were not treated as franchise
fees, LFAs could easily evade the five
percent cap by requiring any manner of
in-kind contributions, rather than a
monetary fee. Likewise, if cable-related,
in-kind contributions are not counted as
franchise fees, LFAs could circumvent
the five percent cap by requiring, for
example, unlimited free or discounted
cable services and facilities for LFAs, in
addition to a five percent franchise fee.
We believe this result would be contrary
to Congress’s intent as reflected in the
broad definition of ‘‘franchise fee’’ in
the statute. We seek comment on this
analysis.
18. Section 622(g)(2) sets forth five
exclusions from the term ‘‘franchise
fee.’’ To begin with, section 622(g)(2)(A)
excludes ‘‘any tax, fee, or assessment of
general applicability.’’ The legislative
history explains that a tax, fee, or
assessment of general applicability
includes ‘‘such payments as a general
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Oct 12, 2018
Jkt 247001
sales tax, an entertainment tax imposed
on other entertainment businesses as
well as the cable operator, and utility
taxes or utility user taxes.’’ By
definition, a tax, fee, or assessment of
general applicability does not cover
cable-related, in-kind contributions.
Thus, we tentatively conclude the
exclusion set forth in subsection (A) is
not applicable here. Additionally,
section 622(g)(2)(E) excludes fees
imposed under the Copyright Act under
title 17, United States Code, and thus
does not appear to apply to cablerelated, in-kind contributions.
Furthermore, section 622(g)(2)(D)
excludes ‘‘requirements or charges
incidental to the awarding or enforcing
of the franchise, including payments for
bonds, security funds, letters of credit,
insurance, indemnification, penalties, or
liquidated damages.’’ Although the
statute does not define the term
‘‘incidental,’’ based on the interpretive
canon of noscitur a sociis, the
exemplary list delineated within the
text of the provision—i.e., ‘‘bonds,’’
‘‘security funds,’’ ‘‘letters of credit,
‘‘insurance,’’ ‘‘indemnification,’’
‘‘penalties,’’ and ‘‘liquidated
damages’’—suggests that the term refers
to costs or requirements related to
assuring that a cable operator is
financially and legally qualified to
operate a cable system, not to cablerelated, in-kind contributions. The
legislative history similarly explains
that a ‘‘franchise fee is defined so as not
to include any bonds, security funds, or
other incidental requirements for costs
necessary to the enforcement of the
franchise.’’ The court in Alliance
upheld the Commission’s determination
that under section 622(g)(2)(D), the term
‘‘incidental’’ is ‘‘limited to the list of
incidentals in the statutory provision, as
well as other minor expenses.’’ The
Commission has determined that nonincidental costs required by LFAs must
count toward the five percent franchise
fee cap. The First Report and Order
listed various examples of nonincidental costs, including in-kind
payments unrelated to provision of
cable service. For the reasons stated
above, we tentatively conclude that
cable-related, in-kind contributions,
such as free or discounted cable services
demanded by an LFA, likewise do not
qualify as ‘‘incidental’’ charges under
the exclusion in subsection (D). We seek
comment on this analysis.
19. Additionally, section 622(g)(2)(B)
contains an exclusion for PEG support
payments, but only with respect to
franchises granted prior to 1984. To the
extent that any such franchises are still
in effect, we tentatively conclude that
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51915
under section 622(g)(2)(B), PEG support
payments made pursuant to such
franchises are cable-related, in-kind
contributions excluded from the five
percent franchise fee cap. We seek
comment on this tentative conclusion.
Finally, for any franchise granted after
1984, section 622(g)(2)(C) contains a
narrow exclusion covering PEG ‘‘capital
costs which are required by the
franchise.’’ The legislative history
explains that with ‘‘regard[ ] [to] PEG
access in new franchises, payments for
capital costs required by the franchise to
be made by the cable operator are not
defined as fees under this provision.’’
The court in Alliance affirmed the
Commission’s interpretation of the
exemption in section 622(g)(2)(C) as
being limited to ‘‘those costs incurred in
or associated with the construction of
PEG access facilities.’’ Accordingly,
under the statute, for purposes of
franchises granted after 1984, we
tentatively conclude that PEG capital
costs required by the franchise are inkind, cable-related contributions
excluded from the five percent cap. We
seek comment on the above analysis.
We also understand that costs for studio
equipment are treated as capital costs
for purposes of section 622(g)(2)(C) by
both cable operators and LFAs given
that most PEG facilities are already
constructed. We seek comment on this
practice.
20. We tentatively conclude that
treating cable-related, in-kind
contributions as ‘‘franchise fees’’ would
not undermine provisions in the Act
that authorize or require LFAs to impose
cable-related obligations on franchisees.
We note, in this regard, that the Act
authorizes LFAs to require that channel
capacity be designated for PEG use and
that channel capacity on I-Nets be
designated for educational and
governmental use. The fact that the Act
authorizes LFAs to impose such
obligations does not, however, mean
that the value of these obligations
should be excluded from the five
percent cap on franchise fees. Indeed,
the statute suggests otherwise. Section
622(g)(2) carves out only limited
exclusions for PEG-related costs—i.e.,
PEG support payments required by any
franchise granted prior to 1984 and PEG
capital costs required by any franchise
granted after 1984. Section 622(g)(2)
makes no mention of an I-Net-related
exclusion, nor does it contain a general
exclusion for all PEG related costs.
Since Congress enacted the PEG and INet provisions at the same time it added
the franchise fee provisions, it could
have explicitly excluded those costs in
addressing the scope of the PEG-related
E:\FR\FM\15OCP1.SGM
15OCP1
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
51916
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2018 / Proposed Rules
costs in that subsection if it had
intended they not count toward the cap.
Based on this, we tentatively find that
treating all cable-related, in-kind
contributions as ‘‘franchise fees,’’ unless
expressly excluded by the statute,
would best effectuate the statutory
purpose. To the extent that an LFA
wishes to impose such obligations, the
LFA can count the value of the services
or facilities towards the cable operator’s
franchise fee payment, if the services or
facilities are not exempt from the
franchise fee cap in section 622(g)(2). In
our view, an LFA should not be
permitted to make an end run around
the statutory cap by requiring a cable
operator to pay franchise fees equal to
five percent of its gross revenues for
cable services and also assume the costs
of cable-related, in-kind contributions.
We seek comment on this view.
21. LFAs have previously suggested
that our proposed interpretation would
treat as franchise fees all costs related to
franchise requirements, even those
allowed under the Cable Act. We
disagree. For example, the Act directs
LFAs ‘‘to assure that access to cable
service is not denied to any group of
potential residential cable subscribers
because of the income of the residents
of the local area in which such group
resides,’’ a mandate which may cause
LFAs to impose build-out obligations on
cable operators. Although these
obligations are not free for cable
operators, we do not propose to
interpret build-out obligations as
contributions to the LFA. Because buildout obligations (unlike I-Net facilities)
involve the construction of facilities that
are not specifically for the use or benefit
of the LFA or any other entity
designated by the LFA, but rather are
part of the provision of cable service in
the franchise area and the facilities
ultimately may result in profit to the
cable operator, we do not think they
should be considered contributions to
an LFA. Under this approach, the cost
that these obligations impose on cable
operators would not count toward the
five-percent franchise fee cap. We seek
comment on this proposed
interpretation. We also seek comment
on whether there are other requirements
besides build-out obligations that are
not specifically for the use or benefit of
the LFA or an entity designated the LFA
and therefore should not be considered
contributions to an LFA.
22. Additionally, we tentatively
conclude that this treatment of cablerelated, in-kind contributions should be
applied to both new entrants and
incumbent cable operators. As
discussed above, in adopting rules and
guidance implementing section
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Oct 12, 2018
Jkt 247001
621(a)(1), including rules governing the
treatment of certain costs and fees
charged by LFAs, the Commission
found that the existing operation of the
local franchising process constituted an
unreasonable barrier to new entrants in
the marketplace for cable services and to
their deployment of broadband.
Specifically, the Commission found that
the local franchising process
unreasonably delays new entrants from
upgrading their networks to provide
video services, which discourages
investment in the fiber-based
infrastructure necessary for the
provision of broadband services by
depriving new entrants of revenues
needed to offset the costs of such
deployment. We acknowledge that this
distinguishes new entrants from
incumbent cable operators, who have
already deployed their infrastructure for
both video and broadband.
Nevertheless, we believe that applying
the same treatment of cable-related, inkind contributions to both new entrants
and incumbent cable operators would
ensure a more level playing field and
that the Commission should not place
its thumb on the scale to give a
regulatory advantage to any competitor.
Moreover, as the Commission has
previously observed, Section 622 ‘‘does
not distinguish between incumbent
providers and new entrants.’’ We seek
comment on this proposal.
23. We seek comment on the effect, if
any, that our statutory interpretation
would have on LFAs’ ability to impose
cable-related, in-kind obligations on
new entrants and incumbents consistent
with the statutory provisions described
above. To the extent that commenters
assert that it would unreasonably
hamper LFAs’ ability to impose such
obligations, we request that they
provide specific cost data or other
information to support their position.
Conversely, what effect, if any, would
excluding cable-related, in-kind
contributions from ‘‘franchise fees’’ (i.e.,
allowing LFAs to seek unlimited cablerelated, in-kind contributions on top of
the five percent franchise fee permitted
by section 622) have on new entrants
and incumbents? Would such exclusion
likely delay or deter infrastructure
investment by new competitors? Would
it affect incumbent cable operators’
ability to invest in new facilities and
services, including improving
broadband services? We also seek
comment on the costs and benefits to
consumers of our proposed treatment of
cable-related, in-kind contributions.
24. We propose to define ‘‘cablerelated, in-kind contributions’’ to
include ‘‘any non-monetary
contributions related to the provision of
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
cable services provided by cable
operators as a condition or requirement
of a local franchise agreement, including
but not limited to free or discounted
cable services and the use of cable
facilities or equipment. It does not
include the cost of build-out
requirements.’’ Under this proposed
definition, cable-related, in-kind
contributions would not have to be
provided directly to the LFA to be
subject to the statutory five percent cap;
rather, any cable-related, in-kind
contributions provided to the LFA or
any other entity designated by the LFA
as a condition or requirement of a
franchise agreement would be subject to
the cap, if not expressly exempt under
section 622(g)(2). We seek comment on
this proposed definition. We request
commenters to provide examples of the
types of cable-related, ‘‘in-kind’’
contributions that have been or are
being required by LFAs. We further
propose that cable-related, in-kind
contributions be valued for purposes of
the franchise fee cap at their fair market
value. We seek comment on this
proposal, and how such a market
valuation should be performed.
Alternatively, we seek comment on
whether cable-related, in-kind
contributions should be valued at the
cost to the cable operator.
B. Mixed-Use Networks
25. We tentatively conclude that the
mixed-use network ruling should be
applied to incumbent cable operators to
the extent that they offer or begin
offering non-cable services. Thus, we
propose to prohibit LFAs from using
their video franchising authority to
regulate most non-cable services offered
over cable systems by incumbent cable
operators. Non-cable services offered by
incumbent cable operators include
telecommunications services and nontelecommunications services.
Telecommunications services offered by
incumbent cable operators may include,
for example, some business data
services. Non-telecommunications
services offered by incumbent cable
operators may include information
services, such as broadband internet
access services, and private carrier
services, such as certain types of
business data services. Incumbent cable
operators may also offer facilities-based
interconnected Voice over internet
Protocol (VoIP) service, which has not
been classified by the Commission as
either a telecommunications service or
an information service but is clearly not
a cable service. We seek comment on
whether there are other services offered
by incumbent cable operators that are
E:\FR\FM\15OCP1.SGM
15OCP1
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2018 / Proposed Rules
not listed above that are relevant to our
analysis.
26. As an initial matter, we note that
the court in Montgomery County
vacated the mixed-use rule only as
applied to incumbent cable operators
that are not common carriers. The court,
however, appears to have left
undisturbed application of the mixeduse ruling to incumbent cable operators
that are also common carriers. As
explained above, some incumbent cable
operators provide telecommunications
services over their facilities. Under
section 3(51) of the Act, a ‘‘provider of
telecommunications services’’ is a
‘‘telecommunications carrier,’’ which
the statute directs ‘‘shall be treated as a
common carrier under this Act only to
the extent that it is engaged in providing
telecommunications services.’’ Thus, an
incumbent cable operator, to the extent
it offers telecommunications service,
would be treated as a common carrier
subject to Title II of the Act. Section
602(7)(C) of the Act, in turn, excludes
from the term ‘‘cable system’’ ‘‘a facility
of a common carrier which is subject, in
whole or in part, to the provisions of
title II of this Act, except that such
facility shall be considered a cable
system . . . to the extent such facility is
used in the transmission of [cable
service].’’ Accordingly, to the extent that
any incumbent cable operators offer any
telecommunications services, we
tentatively conclude that they are
covered under the common carrier
exception in section 602(7)(C), and thus
can be regulated by LFAs only to the
extent they provide cable service.
Although we recognize that there are
distinctions between the obstacles faced
by new entrants and incumbent cable
operators, we see no basis in the statute
to treat differently incumbent cable
operators that are common carriers and
new entrants that are common carriers
for purposes of application of the
common carrier exception. We thus
tentatively conclude that the mixed-use
network ruling prohibits LFAs from
regulating the provision of any services
other than cable services offered over
the cable systems of incumbent cable
operators that are common carriers, or
from regulating any facilities and
equipment used in the provision of any
services other than cable services
offered over the cable systems of
incumbent cable operators that are
common carriers (with the exception of
I-Nets, as noted above). We seek
comment on this analysis and the
tentative conclusions.
27. In addition, we seek comment on
LFAs’ authority to regulate the
provision of non-cable services by
incumbent cable operators that are not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Oct 12, 2018
Jkt 247001
also common carriers. We also seek
comment on LFAs’ authority to regulate
a non-common carrier new entrant’s
provision of information services. We
request information on the extent to
which incumbent cable operators are
not also common carriers. Are the
incumbent cable operators that are also
common carriers mostly the largest
incumbent cable operators? Regarding
non-cable services provided by
incumbent cable operators that are not
common carriers, we tentatively
conclude that section 624(b) of the Act
prohibits LFAs from using their
franchising authority to regulate the
provision of information services,
including broadband internet access
service. Under section 624(b), LFAs
‘‘may not . . . establish requirements
for video programming or other
information services.’’ Section 624 does
not define the term ‘‘information
services,’’ but the ‘‘definitions’’ section
of the legislative history distinguishes
‘‘information service’’ from ‘‘cable
service.’’ The House Report states that
‘‘[a]ll services offered by a cable system
that go beyond providing generallyavailable video programming or other
programming are not cable services’’
and ‘‘a cable service may not include
‘active information services’ such as athome shopping and banking that allow
transactions between subscribers and
cable operators or third parties.’’ We
also find significant that the description
of ‘‘information services’’ contained in
the 1984 Cable Act’s legislative
history—i.e., ‘‘services providing
subscribers with the capacity to engage
in transactions or to store, transfer,
forward, manipulate, or otherwise
process information or data [which]
would not be cable services’’—
corresponds closely to the 1996
Telecommunications Act’s definition of
‘‘information service’’ contained in
section 3(24) of the Act—i.e., ‘‘the
offering of a capability for generating,
acquiring, storing, transforming,
processing, retrieving, utilizing, or
making available information via
telecommunications.’’ For all the
reasons stated above, we believe that for
purposes of section 624(b), interpreting
‘‘information services’’ to have the
meaning set forth in section 3(24) of the
Act would best reflect Congressional
intent. We further note that the
Commission recently reinstated the
‘‘information service’’ classification of
broadband internet access service. We
seek comment on this analysis.
28. Based on the above analysis, we
tentatively conclude that the statute also
bars LFAs from regulating the provision
of broadband internet access and other
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51917
information services by incumbent cable
operators that are not common carriers.
Although section 624(b)(2)(B) allows
franchising authorities to enforce
requirements for ‘‘broad categories of
video programming or other services,’’
when read in light of Section 624(b)(1)
and the legislative history, we believe
that Congress intended to bar LFAs from
regulating information services. We
further note that under section 624(b),
‘‘the franchising authority, to the extent
related to the establishment or operation
of a cable system . . . may establish
requirements for facilities and
equipment.’’ In light of our tentative
finding that section 624(b)(1) bars LFAs
from regulating information services, we
do not believe this provision authorizes
LFAs to regulate facilities or equipment
to the extent they are used to provide
such services, including broadband
internet access service. We seek
comment on this interpretation and our
tentative conclusion. Would such an
interpretation best effectuate the
statutory purpose? We also seek
comment on the extent to which LFAs
currently attempt to regulate the
provision of information services by
incumbent cable operators or the
facilities and equipment used in the
provision of such services. Do LFAs
require incumbent cable operators to
obtain a separate franchise or pay
franchise fees in connection with their
provision of broadband internet access
or other information services, and if so,
what are the circumstances and
rationale for such requirements? What
other franchise requirements do LFAs
impose on information services
provided by incumbent cable operators?
What effect, if any, do such franchise
requirements have on the deployment of
new information services, including
broadband internet access service?
29. In any event, we believe that LFA
regulation of such services would be
inconsistent with longstanding federal
policy. The Commission has previously
concluded that broadband internet
access service is ‘‘a jurisdictionally
interstate service because ‘a substantial
portion of internet traffic involves
accessing interstate or foreign
websites.’’’ Therefore, we tentatively
conclude that LFAs may not regulate
such interstate services and that doing
so would frustrate the light-touch
information service framework
established by Congress that the
Commission has previously found
necessary to promote investment and
innovation. In the Restoring internet
Freedom Order, the Commission
concluded that ‘‘regulation of
broadband internet access service
E:\FR\FM\15OCP1.SGM
15OCP1
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
51918
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2018 / Proposed Rules
should be governed principally by a
uniform set of federal regulations, rather
than by a patchwork that includes
separate state and local requirements.’’
The Commission found that allowing
state and local governments to regulate
broadband internet access service could
disrupt the procompetitive, deregulatory
goals of the federal regulatory regime
and impair the provision of broadband
internet access service by requiring each
provider to comply with a patchwork of
separate and potentially conflicting
requirements across all of the different
jurisdictions in which it operates. The
Commission therefore preempted any
state or local measures that would
impose rules or requirements that it had
repealed or decided to refrain from
imposing in that order or that would
impose more stringent requirements for
any aspect of broadband service
addressed in that order. Among other
things, the Commission expressly
preempted any ‘‘economic’’ or ‘‘public
utility-type’’ regulations, including
entry and exit restrictions. For similar
reasons, we tentatively conclude that
entry and exit restrictions include a
requirement that an incumbent cable
operator obtain a franchise to provide
broadband internet access service and
that LFAs therefore are expressly
preempted from requiring incumbent
cable operators to obtain franchises to
provide broadband internet access
service. We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion. We also seek
comment on whether there are other
regulations imposed by LFAs on
incumbent cable operators’ provision of
broadband internet access service that
should be considered entry and exit
restrictions, or other types of economic
or public utility-type regulations,
preempted by the Commission.
30. Moreover, we tentatively conclude
that it would be contrary to the goals of
the Communications Act to permit LFAs
to treat incumbent cable operators that
are not also common carriers differently
than incumbent cable operators and
new entrants that are also common
carriers in their provision of information
services, including broadband internet
access services. Incumbent cable
operators and new entrants (whether
they are common carriers or noncommon carriers) often compete against
each other in the same markets, and
often provide nearly identical services
to consumers. Thus, to regulate
incumbent cable operators that are not
also common carriers more strictly, by
permitting LFAs to place franchise
requirements on their non-cable services
and assess fees on these services, could
put these incumbents at a competitive
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Oct 12, 2018
Jkt 247001
disadvantage that section 621 was
intended to avoid. This competitive
disadvantage could impact not only the
incumbents’ provision of broadband
internet access and other information
services, but also their provision of
cable services. Such a result could
ultimately have a negative impact on
consumers, thereby undermining the
goal of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 Act to ‘‘promote competition’’
across communications providers and
‘‘to secure lower prices and higher
quality services for American
telecommunications consumers’’ by
reducing regulation. We seek comment
on this analysis. We believe these same
concerns would apply to new entrants
that are not common carriers and seek
comment on this analysis with respect
to such entities.
31. Finally, we seek comment on
whether there are any other statutory
provisions that relate to the authority of
LFAs to regulate the provision of noncable services offered over a cable
system by an incumbent cable operator
or the facilities and equipment used in
the provision of such services. For
example, NCTA cites several additional
provisions in support of its assertion
that the Commission should apply the
mixed-use network ruling to incumbent
cable operators: Section 621(a)(2) of the
Act; Section 622 of the Act; Section
624(e) of the Act; Section 230(b) of the
Act; and Section 253 of the Act. We seek
comment on the extent to which these
and any other relevant statutory
provisions relate to the authority of
LFAs to regulate the provision of noncable services offered over a cable
system by an incumbent cable operator.
C. State Franchising Regulations
32. We seek comment on whether to
apply the proposals and tentative
conclusions set forth herein, as well as
the Commission’s decisions in the First
Report and Order and Second Report
and Order, as clarified in the Order on
Reconsideration, to franchising actions
taken at the state level and state
regulations that impose requirements on
local franchising. In the First Report and
Order, the Commission adopted time
limits for LFAs to render a final
decision on a new entrant’s franchise
application and established a remedy
for applicants that do not receive a
decision within the applicable time
frame; concluded that it was unlawful
for LFAs to refuse to grant a franchise
to a new entrant on the basis of
unreasonable build-out mandates;
clarified which revenue-generating
services should be included in a new
entrant’s franchise fee revenue base and
which franchise-related costs should
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and should not be included within the
statutory five percent franchise fee cap;
concluded that LFAs may not make
unreasonable demands of new entrants
relating to PEG channels and I-Nets;
adopted the mixed-use network ruling
for new entrants; and preempted local
franchising laws, regulations, and
agreements to the extent they conflict
with the rules adopted in that order. In
the Second Report and Order, the
Commission extended to incumbent
cable operators the rulings in the First
Report and Order relating to franchise
fees and mixed-use networks and the
PEG and I-Net rulings that were deemed
applicable to incumbent cable operators,
i.e., the findings that the non-capital
costs of PEG requirements must be offset
from the cable operator’s franchise fee
payments, that it is not necessary to
adopt standard terms for PEG channels,
and that it is not per se unreasonable for
LFAs to require the payment of ongoing
costs to support PEG, so long as such
support costs as applicable are subject
to the franchise fee cap. As explained
above, the Commission limited its
decisions in the First Report and Order
and Second Report and Order to actions
or inactions at the local level where a
state has not specifically circumscribed
the LFA’s authority, finding that many
of the state franchising laws had been in
effect for only a short period of time and
that it did not have a sufficient record
to apply these decisions to franchising
decisions where a state is involved. The
Commission, however, indicated that it
would revisit this issue in the future if
it received evidence that the findings in
the First Report and Order and/or the
Second Report and Order were of
practical relevance to the franchising
process at the state level. More than ten
years has passed since the Commission
first considered whether to apply its
decisions interpreting section 621(a)(1)
to state-level franchising actions and
state regulations that impose
requirements on local franchising.
Accordingly, we invite comment on
whether we should apply the proposals
and tentative conclusions discussed
above, as well as any or all aspects of
the Commission’s decisions in the First
Report and Order and Second Report
and Order, to state level franchising
actions and state regulations that
impose requirements on local
franchising. Is there any statutory basis
to maintain the distinction between
state-level franchising actions and local
franchising actions? Do state level
franchising actions or state regulations
governing the local franchise process
today impede competition or discourage
investment in infrastructure that can be
E:\FR\FM\15OCP1.SGM
15OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2018 / Proposed Rules
used to provide services, including
video, voice, and broadband internet
access service, to consumers?
IV. Procedural Matters
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Commission has prepared
this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in this
Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (Second FNPRM). Written
public comments are requested on this
IRFA. Comments must be identified as
responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments provided
on the first page of the Second FNPRM.
The Commission will send a copy of the
Second FNPRM, including this IRFA, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (SBA).
In addition, the Second FNPRM and
IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be
published in the Federal Register.
B. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
2. Section 621(a)(1) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, (Act) prohibits local
franchising authorities (LFAs) from
unreasonably refusing to award
competitive franchises for the provision
of cable television services. The
Commission has adopted rules
implementing section 621(a)(1),
including rules governing the treatment
of certain costs and fees charged to cable
operators by LFAs and LFAs’ regulation
of cable operators’ ‘‘mixed-use’’
networks (i.e., facilities used to provide
both cable services and non-cable
services). In Montgomery County, Md. et
al. v. FCC, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit addressed
challenges to these rules. The court
directed the Commission on remand to
provide an explanation for its decision
to treat cable-related, in-kind
contributions charged to cable operators
by LFAs as ‘‘franchise fees’’ subject to
the statutory five percent cap on
franchise fees set forth in section 622(g)
of the Act. The court also directed the
Commission to provide a statutory basis
for its decision to extend its ‘‘mixeduse’’ ruling—which prohibits LFAs from
regulating the provision of services
other than cable services offered over
cable systems used to provide both
cable services and non-cable services—
to incumbent cable operators that are
not common carriers.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Oct 12, 2018
Jkt 247001
3. The Second FNPRM tentatively
concludes that cable-related, in-kind
contributions required by LFAs from
cable operators as a condition or
requirement of a franchise agreement
should be treated as ‘‘franchise fees’’
subject to the statutory five percent
franchise fee cap set forth in section 622
of the Act, with limited exceptions. For
any franchise granted prior to 1984,
section 622(g)(2)(B) contains an
exclusion for PEG support payments.
For any franchise granted after 1984,
section 622(g)(2)(C) contains a narrow
exclusion covering in-kind, cable
related payments for ‘‘capital costs
which are required by the franchise to
be incurred by the cable operator for
public, educational, or governmental
[PEG] access facilities.’’ Accordingly,
the Second FNPRM tentatively
concludes that PEG support payments
required by franchises granted prior to
1984 and PEG capital costs required by
franchises granted after 1984 are cablerelated, in-kind contributions excluded
from the five percent cap. The Second
FNPRM also tentatively concludes that
this treatment of cable-related, in-kind
contributions should be applied to both
new entrants and incumbent cable
operators. The Second FNPRM
tentatively concludes that doing so
would ensure a more level playing field
and that the FCC should not place its
thumb on the scale to give a regulatory
advantage to any competitor.
4. The Second FNPRM proposes to
define ‘‘cable-related, in-kind
contributions’’ to include ‘‘any nonmonetary contributions related to the
provision of cable services provided by
cable operators as a condition or
requirement of a local franchise
agreement, such as free or discounted
cable services, and the use of cable
facilities or equipment. It does not
include the cost of franchise obligations
that do not directly benefit the LFA,
including, but not limited to, build-out
requirements.’’ The Second FNPRM
further proposes that cable-related, inkind contributions be valued for
purposes of the franchise fee cap at their
fair market value.
5. Additionally, the Second FNPRM
tentatively concludes that the mixed-use
network ruling should be applied to
incumbent cable operators to the extent
that they offer or begin offering noncable services, prohibiting LFAs from
using their video franchising authority
to regulate certain non-cable services
offered over cable systems by incumbent
cable operators. The Second FNPRM
tentatively concludes that the mixed-use
network ruling prohibits LFAs from
regulating the provision of any services
other than cable services offered over
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51919
the cable systems of incumbent cable
operators that are common carriers.
Further, the Second FNPRM tentatively
concludes that LFAs may not use their
franchising authority to regulate
incumbent cable operators’ provision of
information services, including
broadband internet access service. The
Second FNPRM also tentatively
concludes that consistent with the
Commission’s decision in the Restoring
internet Freedom Order, which
preempted any state or local measures
that would impose rules or
requirements that the Commission
repealed or decided to refrain from
imposing in that order or that would
impose more stringent requirements for
any aspect of broadband service
addressed in that order, LFAs are
expressly preempted from requiring
incumbent cable operators to obtain
franchises to provide broadband
internet access service.
6. The Second FNPRM also seeks
comment on whether to apply the
proposals and tentative conclusions
discussed in the instant proceeding, as
well as the Commission’s decisions in
the First Report and Order and Second
Report and Order, as clarified in the
Order on Reconsideration, to
franchising actions taken at the state
level and state regulations imposing
requirements on local franchising.
C. Legal Basis
7. The proposed action is authorized
pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 303. 602,
621, 622, and 624 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 303,
522, 541, 542, and 544.
D. Description and Estimates of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
8. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that may be affected by
the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA
generally defines the term ‘‘small
entity’’ as having the same meaning as
the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small
organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term
‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning
as the term ‘‘small business concern’’
under the Small Business Act. A small
business concern is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2)
is not dominant in its field of operation;
and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the SBA. Below, we
provide a description of such small
entities, as well as an estimate of the
number of such small entities, where
feasible.
E:\FR\FM\15OCP1.SGM
15OCP1
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
51920
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2018 / Proposed Rules
9. Small Businesses, Small
Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time,
may affect small entities that are not
easily categorized at present. We
therefore describe here, at the outset,
three broad groups of small entities that
could be directly affected herein. First,
while there are industry specific size
standards for small businesses that are
used in the regulatory flexibility
analysis, according to data from the
SBA’s Office of Advocacy, in general a
small business is an independent
business having fewer than 500
employees. These types of small
businesses represent 99.9% of all
businesses in the United States which
translates to 28.8 million businesses.
10. Next, the type of small entity
described as a ‘‘small organization’’ is
generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its
field.’’ Nationwide, as of Aug 2016,
there were approximately 356,494 small
organizations based on registration and
tax data filed by nonprofits with the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
11. Finally, the small entity described
as a ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’
is defined generally as ‘‘governments of
cities, counties, towns, townships,
villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than
fifty thousand.’’ U.S. Census Bureau
data from the 2012 Census of
Governments indicates that there were
90,056 local governmental jurisdictions
consisting of general purpose
governments and special purpose
governments in the United States. Of
this number there were 37,132 General
purpose governments (county,
municipal and town or township) with
populations of less than 50,000 and
12,184 Special purpose governments
(independent school districts and
special districts) with populations of
less than 50,000. The 2012 U.S. Census
Bureau data for most types of
governments in the local government
category shows that the majority of
these governments have populations of
less than 50,000. Based on this data we
estimate that at least 49,316 local
government jurisdictions fall in the
category of ‘‘small governmental
jurisdictions.’’
12. Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as ‘‘establishments
primarily engaged in operating and/or
providing access to transmission
facilities and infrastructure that they
own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound, and video using
wired communications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Oct 12, 2018
Jkt 247001
a single technology or a combination of
technologies. Establishments in this
industry use the wired
telecommunications network facilities
that they operate to provide a variety of
services, such as wired telephony
services, including VoIP services, wired
(cable) audio and video programming
distribution, and wired broadband
internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite
television distribution services using
facilities and infrastructure that they
operate are included in this industry.’’
The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, which
consists of all such companies having
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census
data for 2012 shows that there were
3,117 firms that operated that year. Of
this total, 3,083 operated with fewer
than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this
size standard, the majority of firms in
this industry can be considered small.
13. Cable Companies and Systems
(Rate Regulation Standard). The
Commission has developed its own
small business size standards, for the
purpose of cable rate regulation. Under
the Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small cable
company’’ is one serving 400,000 or
fewer subscribers, nationwide. Industry
data indicate that, of 4,600 cable
operators nationwide, all but 9 are small
under this size standard. In addition,
under the Commission’s rules, a ‘‘small
system’’ is a cable system serving 15,000
or fewer subscribers. Industry data
indicate that, of 4,600 systems
nationwide, 3,900 have fewer than
15,000 subscribers, based on the same
records. Thus, under this second size
standard, the Commission believes that
most cable systems are small.
14. Cable System Operators. The Act
also contains a size standard for small
cable system operators, which is ‘‘a
cable operator that, directly or through
an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer
than 1 percent of all subscribers in the
United States and is not affiliated with
any entity or entities whose gross
annual revenues in the aggregate exceed
$250,000,000.’’ There are approximately
52,403,705 cable subscribers in the
United States today. Accordingly, an
operator serving fewer than 524,037
subscribers shall be deemed a small
operator, if its annual revenues, when
combined with the total revenues of all
its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million
in the aggregate. Based on the available
data, we find that all but nine
independent cable operators are
affiliated with entities whose gross
annual revenues exceed $250 million.
Although it seems certain that some of
these cable system operators are
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
affiliated with entities whose gross
annual revenues exceed $250 million,
we note that the Commission neither
requests nor collects information on
whether cable system operators are
affiliated with entities whose gross
annual revenues exceed $250 million,
and therefore we are unable to estimate
more accurately the number of cable
system operators that would qualify as
small under the definition in the
Communications Act.
15. Open Video Services. Open Video
Service (OVS) systems provide
subscription services. The open video
system framework was established in
1996, and is one of four statutorily
recognized options for the provision of
video programming services by local
exchange carriers. The OVS framework
provides opportunities for the
distribution of video programming other
than through cable systems. Because
OVS operators provide subscription
services, OVS falls within the SBA
small business size standard covering
cable services, which is ‘‘Wired
Telecommunications Carriers.’’ The
SBA has developed a small business
size standard for this category, which is:
All such firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees. To gauge small business
prevalence for the OVS service, the
Commission relies on data currently
available from the U.S. Census for the
year 2012. According to that source,
there were 3,117 firms that in 2012 were
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Of
these, 3,083 operated with less than
1,000 employees. Based on this data, the
majority of these firms can be
considered small. In addition, we note
that the Commission has certified some
OVS operators, with some now
providing service. Broadband service
providers (BSPs) are currently the only
significant holders of OVS certifications
or local OVS franchises. The
Commission does not have financial or
employment information regarding the
entities authorized to provide OVS,
some of which may not yet be
operational. Thus, at least some of the
OVS operators may qualify as small
entities. The Commission further notes
that it has certified approximately 45
OVS operators to serve 116 areas, and
some of these are currently providing
service. Affiliates of Residential
Communications Network, Inc. (RCN)
received approval to operate OVS
systems in New York City, Boston,
Washington, DC, and other areas. RCN
has sufficient revenues to assure that
they do not qualify as a small business
entity. Little financial information is
available for the other entities that are
authorized to provide OVS and are not
E:\FR\FM\15OCP1.SGM
15OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2018 / Proposed Rules
yet operational. Given that some entities
authorized to provide OVS service have
not yet begun to generate revenues, the
Commission concludes that up to 44
OVS operators (those remaining) might
qualify as small businesses that may be
affected by the rules and policies
adopted herein.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
E. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
16. The rules proposed in the Second
FNPRM would not impose any
additional reporting or recordkeeping
requirements and any compliance
requirements imposed by the proposed
rules are expected to have only a de
minimis effect on small governmental
jurisdictions. LFAs would continue to
perform their role of reviewing and
making decisions on applications for
cable franchises and any modifications
to the local franchising process resulting
from the proposed rules would further
streamline that process. The proposed
rules would streamline the local
franchising process by providing
guidance as to the appropriate treatment
of cable-related, in-kind contributions
demanded by LFAs for purposes of the
statutory five percent franchise fee cap,
what constitutes ‘‘cable-related, in-kind
contributions,’’ and how such
contributions are to be valued. In
addition, the proposed rules would
streamline the local franchising process
by making clear that LFAs may not use
their video franchising authority to
regulate the provision of certain noncable services offered over cable systems
by incumbent cable operators.
F. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
1. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant, specifically
small business, alternatives that it has
considered in reaching its proposed
approach, which may include the
following four alternatives (among
others): (1) The establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements
under the rule for such small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than
design, standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part
thereof, for small entities.
2. To the extent that the proposed
rules are matters of statutory
interpretation, we tentatively find that
the proposed rules are statutorily
mandated and therefore no meaningful
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Oct 12, 2018
Jkt 247001
alternatives exist. Moreover, as noted
above, the proposed rules are expected
to have only a de minimis effect on
small governmental jurisdictions. The
proposed rules would streamline the
local franchising process by providing
additional guidance to LFAs.
3. In addition, the proposal to treat
cable-related, in-kind contributions as
‘‘franchise fees’’ subject the statutory
five percent franchise fee cap, with one
limited exception, would benefit small
cable operators by ensuring that LFAs
do not circumvent the statutory five
percent cap by demanding, for example,
unlimited free or discounted services.
This in turn would help to ensure that
local franchising requirements do not
deter small cable operators from
investing in new services and facilities.
G. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rule
4. None.
H. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 Analysis
5. This document does not contain
any proposed information collections
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In
addition, therefore, it does not contain
any new or modified information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees,
pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002.
I. Ex Parte Rules
6. Permit-But-Disclose. This
proceeding shall be treated as a ‘‘permitbut-disclose’’ proceeding in accordance
with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
Persons making ex parte presentations
must file a copy of any written
presentation or a memorandum
summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the
presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda, or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51921
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with section
1.1206(b) of the rules. In proceedings
governed by section 1.49(f) of the rules
or for which the Commission has made
available a method of electronic filing,
written ex parte presentations and
memoranda summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
J. Filing Procedures
7. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and
1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. Comments may
be filed using the Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS).
D Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/
ecfs/.
D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in
the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for
each additional docket or rulemaking
number.
D Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
D All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street SW, TW–A325, Washington,
DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m.
to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be
held together with rubber bands or
fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes
must be disposed of before entering the
building.
D Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
E:\FR\FM\15OCP1.SGM
15OCP1
51922
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 199 / Monday, October 15, 2018 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD
20701.
D U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW,
Washington, DC 20554.
8. Availability of Documents.
Comments, reply comments, and ex
parte submissions will be available for
public inspection during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference
Center, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street SW, CY–
A257, Washington, DC 20554. These
documents will also be available via
ECFS. Documents will be available
electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word,
and/or Adobe Acrobat.
9. People with Disabilities. To request
materials in accessible formats for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Oct 12, 2018
Jkt 247001
people with disabilities (Braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530
(voice), (202) 418–0432 (TTY).
10. Additional Information. For
additional information on this
proceeding, contact Kathy Berthot,
Kathy.Berthot@fcc.gov, of the Media
Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418–
7454.
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
is adopted.
12. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
V. Ordering Clauses
11. Accordingly, It is ordered that,
pursuant to the authority found in
Sections 1, 4(i), 303, 602, 621, 622, and
624 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 303,
522, 541, 542, and 544, this Second
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
[FR Doc. 2018–22356 Filed 10–12–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\15OCP1.SGM
15OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 199 (Monday, October 15, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51911-51922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22356]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[MB Docket No. 05-311; FCC 18-131]
Implementation of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as
Amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act
of 1992
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on two cable
franchising issues raised by the remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit in Montgomery County, Md. et al. v. FCC. The
Commission tentatively concludes that, with limited exceptions,
``cable-related, in-kind contributions'' required by a franchising
agreement should be treated as ``franchise fees'' subject to the
statutory five percent cap on franchise fees set forth in
Communications Act. It also tentatively concludes that the mixed-use
network ruling should be applied to incumbent cable operators to
prohibit LFAs from using their video franchising authority to regulate
the provision of most non-cable services, including telecommunications
services and information services such as broadband internet access
service, offered over a cable system by an incumbent cable operator.
These tentative conclusions are intended to promote competition by
fostering parity between incumbents and new entrants and helping to
ensure that local franchising requirements do not discourage cable
operators from investing in new facilities and services.
DATES: Comments for this proceeding are due on or before November 14,
2018; reply comments are due on or before December 14, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 05-311,
by any of the following methods:
[ssquf] Federal Communications Commission's Website: https://
[[Page 51912]]
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
[ssquf] Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
[ssquf] People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: (202) 418-
0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, contact
Kathy Berthot, [email protected], of the Media Bureau, Policy
Division, (202) 418-7454.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 18-131, adopted on September
24, 2018 and released on September 25, 2018. The full text is available
for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the
FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th
Street SW, CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be
available via ECFS (https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). Documents will be
available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.
Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities
(Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an
email to [email protected] or calling the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432
(TTY).
This Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking does not contain
any proposed information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does
not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002.
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. In this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second
FNPRM), we address two issues raised by the remand from the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Montgomery County, Md.
et al. v. FCC, which addressed challenges to rules and guidance adopted
by the Commission governing how local franchising authorities (LFAs)
may regulate incumbent cable operators and cable television services.
Specifically, we tentatively conclude that we should treat cable-
related, ``in-kind'' contributions required by a franchising agreement
as ``franchise fees'' subject to the statutory five percent cap on
franchise fees set forth in section 622 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended (the Act), with limited exceptions. We also
tentatively conclude that we should apply our prior mixed-use network
ruling to incumbent cable operators, thus prohibiting LFAs from using
their video franchising authority to regulate the provision of most
non-cable services, such as broadband internet access service, offered
over a cable system by an incumbent cable operator. We seek comment on
these tentative conclusions, which we believe faithfully interpret
relevant statutory provisions and will promote competition by fostering
parity between incumbents and new entrants and helping to ensure that
local franchising requirements do not discourage cable operators from
investing in new facilities and services. We also seek comment on
whether the proposals and tentative conclusions discussed in this
Second FNPRM, as well as prior Commission decisions in this proceeding
addressing LFA regulation of cable operators, should be applied to
state-level franchising actions and state regulations that impose
requirements on local franchising.
II. Background
2. Any entity seeking to offer ``cable service'' as a ``cable
operator'' must comply with the cable franchising provisions of Title
VI of the Communications Act. Section 621(b)(1) of the Act prohibits a
cable operator from providing cable service without first obtaining a
cable franchise. Section 621(a)(1) circumscribes the power of LFAs to
award or deny such franchises. As originally enacted by Congress as
part of the 1984 Cable Act, section 621(a)(1) simply stated that ``[a]
franchising authority may award, in accordance with the provisions of
this title, 1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction.'' In a 1990
Report to Congress, however, the Commission concluded that in order
``[t]o encourage more robust competition in the local video
marketplace, the Congress should . . . forbid local franchising
authorities from unreasonably denying a franchise to potential
competitors who are ready and able to provide service.'' In response to
this Report, Congress revised section 621(a)(1) in 1992 to provide that
``[a] franchising authority may award, in accordance with the
provisions of this title, 1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction;
except that a franchising authority may not grant an exclusive
franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional
competitive franchise.''
3. In 2007, finding that the existing operation of the local
franchising process constituted an unreasonable barrier to new entrants
in the marketplace for cable services and to their deployment of
broadband, the Commission issued the First Report and Order, which
adopted new rules and guidance to implement section 621(a)(1). The
Commission concluded that section 621(a)(1) prohibits not only the
ultimate unreasonable denial of a competitive franchise application,
but also the establishment by LFAs of procedures and other requirements
that have the effect of unreasonably interfering with the ability of a
would-be competitor to obtain a competitive franchise. To eliminate
unreasonable barriers to entry into the marketplace for cable services
and to encourage investment by new video entrants in broadband
facilities, the Commission adopted rules and guidance construing the
meaning of ``unreasonable'' for purposes of section 621(a)(1),
including rules and guidance governing the treatment of certain costs
and fees charged to new entrants into the marketplace for cable
services and the regulation of new entrants' ``mixed-use'' networks
(i.e., facilities used to provide both cable services and non-cable
services).
4. With respect to costs and fees, the Commission determined that
unless certain specified costs, fees, and other compensation required
by LFAs are counted toward the statutory five percent cap on franchise
fees, an LFA's demand for such fees could result in an unreasonable
refusal to award a competitive franchise to a new entrant. Under
section 622(b) of the Act, the amount of franchise fees that an LFA may
collect from a cable operator for any twelve-month period is limited to
five percent of the cable operator's gross revenues derived in such
period from the operation of the cable system to
[[Page 51913]]
provide cable services. Section 622(g)(2) sets forth certain exclusions
from the term ``franchise fee.'' In particular, section 622(g)(2)(D)
excludes ``requirements or charges incidental to the awarding or
enforcing of the franchise, including payments for bonds, security
funds, letters of credit, insurance, indemnification, penalties, or
liquidated damages.'' Such ``incidental'' requirements or charges may
be assessed by an LFA without counting toward the five percent cap. The
Commission concluded that, with respect to franchise agreements for new
entrants, non-incidental franchise-related costs required by LFAs must
count toward the five percent franchise fee cap and provided guidance
as to what constitutes such non-incidental franchise-related costs. The
Commission found that non-incidental costs include attorney fees and
consultant fees, application or processing fees that exceed the
reasonable cost of processing the application, acceptance fees, free or
discounted services provided to an LFA, any requirement to lease or
purchase equipment from an LFA at prices higher than market value, and
in-kind payments.
5. The Commission further found that in the context of some
franchise negotiations, LFAs have required from new entrants ``in-
kind'' payments or contributions that are unrelated to the provision of
cable services. The Commission clarified that any requests for in-kind
contributions made by LFAs unrelated to the provision of cable services
by a new competitive entrant are subject to the statutory five percent
franchise fee cap.
6. Additionally, the Commission clarified that a cable operator may
not be required to pay franchise fees on revenues from non-cable
services. As noted above, section 622(b) provides that the ``franchise
fees paid by a cable operator with respect to any cable system shall
not exceed 5 percent of such cable operator's gross revenues derived in
such period from the operation of the cable system to provide cable
services.'' The Commission noted that it had determined in the Cable
Modem Declaratory Ruling that an LFA may not assess franchise fees on
non-cable services, such as cable modem service, stating that ``revenue
from cable modem service would not be included in the calculation of
gross revenues from which the franchise fee ceiling is determined.''
Although that decision related specifically to internet access service
revenues, the Commission concluded that the same would be true for
other ``non-cable'' service revenues.
7. Regarding mixed-use networks (i.e., networks that provide
broadband, voice services, and other non-cable services in addition to
video programming services), the Commission clarified that LFAs'
jurisdiction applies only to the provision of video programming
services over new entrants' cable systems. To the extent that a new
entrant provides non-cable services and/or operates facilities that do
not qualify as a cable system, the Commission concluded that it is
unreasonable for an LFA to refuse to award a franchise based on issues
related to such services or facilities. The Commission further
clarified that an LFA may not use its video franchising authority to
attempt to regulate a new entrant's entire network beyond the provision
of cable services. The Commission found that ``the provision of video
services pursuant to a cable franchise does not provide a basis for
customer service regulation by local law or franchise agreement of a
cable operator's entire network, or any services beyond cable
services.'' The Commission based its decision on the common carrier
exception to the definition of ``cable system'' in section 602(7)(C) of
the Act, which explicitly states that a common carrier facility subject
to Title II is considered a cable system only ``to the extent such
facility is used in the transmission of video programming. . . .'' The
Commission preempted local regulations that attempt to regulate any
non-cable services offered by new entrants, finding that such
regulations are beyond the scope of LFAs' authority and inconsistent
with section 602(7)(C).
8. The rules adopted in the First Report and Order applied only to
new entrants applying for cable franchises. Concurrently with its
adoption of those rules, the Commission issued a Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on whether to apply the findings in
the First Report and Order to incumbent cable operators as they
negotiate renewal of their existing franchise agreements, noting that
many of these findings also appeared germane to existing franchisees.
9. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission extended a number
of the rules adopted in the First Report and Order to incumbent cable
operators. The Commission concluded that the findings in the First
Report and Order interpreting section 622 should apply equally to
incumbents and new entrants because Section 622 ``does not distinguish
between incumbent providers and new entrants.'' Thus, the Commission
found that in-kind contributions are not to be regarded as
``incidental'' and therefore must count toward the five percent
franchise fee cap for incumbent cable operators. The Commission further
found that the clarification that a cable operator is not required to
pay franchise fees on revenues from non-cable services applies to
incumbent cable operators. The Commission also determined that its
findings on mixed-use networks provided in the First Report and Order
should apply equally to incumbents and new entrants, noting that these
findings relied on its statutory interpretation of ``cable system'' in
section 602(7)(C), which ``does not distinguish between incumbent
providers and new entrants.'' The Commission thus clarified that LFAs'
jurisdiction over incumbent cable operators applies only to the
provision of cable services over cable systems and that an LFA may not
use its franchising authority to regulate non-cable services offered by
incumbent cable operators.
10. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently issued a
decision rejecting LFA challenges to the First Report and Order. With
respect to franchise fees charged to new entrants, the court upheld the
Commission's listing of the non-incidental charges that fall within the
purview of the statutory five percent franchise fee cap, which includes
in-kind payments. The court found that the Commission's interpretation
of the phrase ``incidental to'' in section 622(g)(2)(D) of the Act was
reasonable and therefore was entitled to deference under Chevron.
11. In 2015, the Commission issued an order responding to several
LFA petitions for reconsideration of the Second Report and Order. LFAs
challenged the inclusion of in-kind payments in calculating the
franchise fee cap for incumbent cable operators, arguing that the
Commission's findings in the Second Report and Order give an overly
expansive scope to section 622(g)(2)(D) and expanded the definition of
in-kind payments set forth in the First Report and Order. The
Commission disagreed, finding that the Second Report and Order merely
extended the First Report and Order's conclusions regarding application
of the term ``incidental'' in section 622(g)(2)(D) to incumbent cable
operators. The Commission also rejected LFAs' arguments that the First
Report and Order included in the franchise fee cap only in-kind
payments that are unrelated to cable service, not in-kind payments that
are related to cable service. The Commission observed that in a section
entitled ``Charges incidental to the awarding or enforcing of a
franchise,'' the First Report and Order identified ``free or discounted
services provided to an LFA'' as one type of
[[Page 51914]]
``non-incidental'' cost that counted toward the franchise fee cap. The
Commission explained that in that context, the First Report and Order
was referring to free or discounted cable services. The Commission
further found that consistent with the First Report and Order, the
Second Report and Order noted that non-incidental in-kind payments must
count toward the five percent franchise fee cap for incumbent cable
operators and did not expressly limit this requirement to in-kind
payments that are unrelated to cable service.
12. The Order on Reconsideration also declined to modify the
conclusions in the Second Report and Order regarding mixed-use
networks. The Commission observed that the Second Report and Order
extended the Commission's findings on mixed-use networks to incumbent
cable operators, clarifying that LFAs' jurisdiction over incumbent
cable operators is limited to the provision of cable services over
cable systems and that LFAs may not use their franchising authority to
regulate non-cable services provided by incumbent cable operators. The
Commission rejected the LFAs' argument that the legislative history of
the 1984 Cable Act indicates that they have authority over cable
systems in their provision of non-cable services, explaining that while
the legislative history discusses what constitutes a cable service, it
does not address whether localities may regulate non-cable services
provided over cable systems.
13. In Montgomery County, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
addressed challenges by LFAs to the Second Report and Order and the
Order on Reconsideration. The court rejected LFA arguments that non-
cash exactions are not ``franchise fees'' as defined by section
622(g)(1), noting that section 622(g)(1) defines ``franchise fee'' to
include ``any tax, fee, or assessment of any kind'' and that the terms
``tax'' and ``assessment'' can include nonmonetary exactions. The court
found, however, that the fact that the term ``franchise fee'' can
include in-kind contributions ``does not mean that it necessarily does
include every one of them.'' The court concluded that the Commission
failed to offer any explanation in the Second Report and Order or in
the Order on Reconsideration as to why section 622(g)(1) allows it to
treat cable-related, ``in-kind'' exactions as franchise fees. LFAs had
claimed that the Commission's interpretation would limit their ability
to enforce statutory requirements for PEG channel capacity and for
build-out obligations in low-income areas, and the court noted that the
Commission's orders did not reflect any consideration of this LFA
concern. The court also stated that the FCC failed to define what ``in-
kind'' means. The court therefore vacated as arbitrary and capricious
the Second Report and Order and the Order on Reconsideration to the
extent that they treat cable-related, ``in-kind'' exactions as
``franchise fees'' under section 622(g)(1). The court directed the
Commission to determine and explain on remand to what extent cable-
related, in-kind contributions are ``franchise fees'' under the Act.
14. The court in Montgomery County also agreed with LFAs that
neither the Second Report and Order nor the Order on Reconsideration
offer a valid statutory basis for the application of the mixed-use
ruling to bar LFAs from regulating the provision of non-
telecommunications services by incumbent cable operators. (The court
noted that the LFAs' primary concern with the mixed-use ruling is that
it would prevent them from regulating ``institutional networks'' or
``I-Nets''--communication networks which are constructed or operated by
the cable operator and which are generally available only to
subscribers who are not residential customers--even though the Act
makes clear that LFAs may regulate I-Nets. The court observed, however,
that the Commission acknowledged that its mixed-use ruling was not
meant to prevent LFAs from regulating I-Nets.) The court stated that
the Commission's decision in the First Report and Order to apply the
mixed-use ruling to new entrants had been defensible because section
602(7)(C) of the Act expressly states that LFAs may regulate Title II
carriers only to the extent that they provide cable services and the
Commission found that new entrants generally are Title II carriers. The
court observed that in extending the mixed-use ruling to incumbent
cable operators in the Second Report and Order, the Commission merely
relied on the First Report and Order's interpretation of section
602(7)(C), noting that section 602(7)(C) ``does not distinguish between
incumbent providers and new entrants.'' The court found, however, that
this reasoning is not an affirmative basis for the Commission's
decision in the Second Report and Order to apply the mixed-use ruling
to incumbent cable operators because section 602(7)(C) by its terms
applies only to Title II carriers and ``many incumbent cable operators
are not Title II carriers.'' The court further found that the Order on
Reconsideration did not offer any statutory explanation for the
Commission's decision to extend the mixed-use ruling to incumbent cable
operators. Accordingly, the court concluded that the Commission's
extension of the mixed-use ruling to incumbent cable operators that are
not common carriers was arbitrary and capricious. The court vacated the
mixed-use ruling as applied to those incumbent cable operators and
remanded for the Commission ``to set forth a valid statutory basis, if
there is one, for the rule as so applied.''
15. As we address the court's remand in this proceeding, we view
the proposals discussed below as part of the Commission's larger,
ongoing effort to reduce regulatory barriers to infrastructure
investment. For example, the Commission's open wireline and wireless
infrastructure proceedings have advanced a number of regulatory reforms
to spur wireline and wireless service deployment, and additional
reforms remain under consideration for future Commission action. In the
wireline proceeding, the Commission has already enacted numerous
reforms to our rules and procedures regarding pole attachments, copper
retirement, and discontinuances of legacy services that will better
enable providers to invest in next-generation networks. In the wireless
proceeding, to enable and to speed the deployment of advanced wireless
services throughout the United States, we revised the rules and
procedures for deployments subject to the National Historic
Preservation Act and National Environmental Policy Act. We also made
changes to the historic preservation review requirement for replacement
utility poles, and have sought comment on a proposal that would make
existing infrastructure available for additional wireless deployments
on towers that previously have been unavailable. Similarly, with this
item, we seek to faithfully interpret the statutory provisions at issue
in a way that preserves incentives for all cable operators to deploy
infrastructure that can be used to provide numerous services, including
video, voice, and broadband internet access service, to consumers.
III. Discussion
A. Cable-Related, In-Kind Contributions
16. We tentatively conclude that we should treat cable-related, in-
kind contributions required by LFAs from cable operators as a condition
or requirement of a franchise agreement as ``franchise fees'' subject
to the statutory five percent franchise fee cap set forth in section
622 of the Act, with limited exceptions as described below. We
tentatively conclude that this
[[Page 51915]]
interpretation is most consistent with the statutory language and
legislative history and seek comment on our analysis.
17. Section 622(b) directs that ``the franchise fees paid by a
cable operator'' for any 12-month period ``shall not exceed 5 percent
of such cable operator's gross revenues.'' Section 622(g)(1) defines
``franchise fee'' broadly to include ``any tax, fee, or assessment of
any kind imposed by a franchising authority or other governmental
entity on a cable operator . . . solely because of their status as
such.'' The court in Montgomery County acknowledged that the term
``franchise fee'' can include in-kind contributions, but stated that
further explanation was necessary in order for the Commission to
conclude that cable-related, in-kind contributions are covered within
the definition. We note that the broad definition of ``franchise fee''
in the statute covers ``any kind'' of tax, fee, or assessment, without
distinguishing between whether it is related or unrelated to the
provision of cable service. The legislative history, in discussing the
definition of ``franchise fee,'' likewise suggests no such distinction
was intended by Congress. The court's decision in Montgomery County did
not disturb the Commission's treatment of in-kind contributions
unrelated to the provision of cable services as franchise fees subject
to the statutory five percent cap. We see no basis in the statute or
legislative history for distinguishing between in-kind contributions
unrelated to the provision of cable services and cable-related, in-kind
contributions for purposes of the five percent franchise fee cap. If
in-kind contributions unrelated to the provision of cable services were
not treated as franchise fees, LFAs could easily evade the five percent
cap by requiring any manner of in-kind contributions, rather than a
monetary fee. Likewise, if cable-related, in-kind contributions are not
counted as franchise fees, LFAs could circumvent the five percent cap
by requiring, for example, unlimited free or discounted cable services
and facilities for LFAs, in addition to a five percent franchise fee.
We believe this result would be contrary to Congress's intent as
reflected in the broad definition of ``franchise fee'' in the statute.
We seek comment on this analysis.
18. Section 622(g)(2) sets forth five exclusions from the term
``franchise fee.'' To begin with, section 622(g)(2)(A) excludes ``any
tax, fee, or assessment of general applicability.'' The legislative
history explains that a tax, fee, or assessment of general
applicability includes ``such payments as a general sales tax, an
entertainment tax imposed on other entertainment businesses as well as
the cable operator, and utility taxes or utility user taxes.'' By
definition, a tax, fee, or assessment of general applicability does not
cover cable-related, in-kind contributions. Thus, we tentatively
conclude the exclusion set forth in subsection (A) is not applicable
here. Additionally, section 622(g)(2)(E) excludes fees imposed under
the Copyright Act under title 17, United States Code, and thus does not
appear to apply to cable-related, in-kind contributions. Furthermore,
section 622(g)(2)(D) excludes ``requirements or charges incidental to
the awarding or enforcing of the franchise, including payments for
bonds, security funds, letters of credit, insurance, indemnification,
penalties, or liquidated damages.'' Although the statute does not
define the term ``incidental,'' based on the interpretive canon of
noscitur a sociis, the exemplary list delineated within the text of the
provision--i.e., ``bonds,'' ``security funds,'' ``letters of credit,
``insurance,'' ``indemnification,'' ``penalties,'' and ``liquidated
damages''--suggests that the term refers to costs or requirements
related to assuring that a cable operator is financially and legally
qualified to operate a cable system, not to cable-related, in-kind
contributions. The legislative history similarly explains that a
``franchise fee is defined so as not to include any bonds, security
funds, or other incidental requirements for costs necessary to the
enforcement of the franchise.'' The court in Alliance upheld the
Commission's determination that under section 622(g)(2)(D), the term
``incidental'' is ``limited to the list of incidentals in the statutory
provision, as well as other minor expenses.'' The Commission has
determined that non-incidental costs required by LFAs must count toward
the five percent franchise fee cap. The First Report and Order listed
various examples of non-incidental costs, including in-kind payments
unrelated to provision of cable service. For the reasons stated above,
we tentatively conclude that cable-related, in-kind contributions, such
as free or discounted cable services demanded by an LFA, likewise do
not qualify as ``incidental'' charges under the exclusion in subsection
(D). We seek comment on this analysis.
19. Additionally, section 622(g)(2)(B) contains an exclusion for
PEG support payments, but only with respect to franchises granted prior
to 1984. To the extent that any such franchises are still in effect, we
tentatively conclude that under section 622(g)(2)(B), PEG support
payments made pursuant to such franchises are cable-related, in-kind
contributions excluded from the five percent franchise fee cap. We seek
comment on this tentative conclusion. Finally, for any franchise
granted after 1984, section 622(g)(2)(C) contains a narrow exclusion
covering PEG ``capital costs which are required by the franchise.'' The
legislative history explains that with ``regard[ ] [to] PEG access in
new franchises, payments for capital costs required by the franchise to
be made by the cable operator are not defined as fees under this
provision.'' The court in Alliance affirmed the Commission's
interpretation of the exemption in section 622(g)(2)(C) as being
limited to ``those costs incurred in or associated with the
construction of PEG access facilities.'' Accordingly, under the
statute, for purposes of franchises granted after 1984, we tentatively
conclude that PEG capital costs required by the franchise are in-kind,
cable-related contributions excluded from the five percent cap. We seek
comment on the above analysis. We also understand that costs for studio
equipment are treated as capital costs for purposes of section
622(g)(2)(C) by both cable operators and LFAs given that most PEG
facilities are already constructed. We seek comment on this practice.
20. We tentatively conclude that treating cable-related, in-kind
contributions as ``franchise fees'' would not undermine provisions in
the Act that authorize or require LFAs to impose cable-related
obligations on franchisees. We note, in this regard, that the Act
authorizes LFAs to require that channel capacity be designated for PEG
use and that channel capacity on I-Nets be designated for educational
and governmental use. The fact that the Act authorizes LFAs to impose
such obligations does not, however, mean that the value of these
obligations should be excluded from the five percent cap on franchise
fees. Indeed, the statute suggests otherwise. Section 622(g)(2) carves
out only limited exclusions for PEG-related costs--i.e., PEG support
payments required by any franchise granted prior to 1984 and PEG
capital costs required by any franchise granted after 1984. Section
622(g)(2) makes no mention of an I-Net-related exclusion, nor does it
contain a general exclusion for all PEG related costs. Since Congress
enacted the PEG and I-Net provisions at the same time it added the
franchise fee provisions, it could have explicitly excluded those costs
in addressing the scope of the PEG-related
[[Page 51916]]
costs in that subsection if it had intended they not count toward the
cap. Based on this, we tentatively find that treating all cable-
related, in-kind contributions as ``franchise fees,'' unless expressly
excluded by the statute, would best effectuate the statutory purpose.
To the extent that an LFA wishes to impose such obligations, the LFA
can count the value of the services or facilities towards the cable
operator's franchise fee payment, if the services or facilities are not
exempt from the franchise fee cap in section 622(g)(2). In our view, an
LFA should not be permitted to make an end run around the statutory cap
by requiring a cable operator to pay franchise fees equal to five
percent of its gross revenues for cable services and also assume the
costs of cable-related, in-kind contributions. We seek comment on this
view.
21. LFAs have previously suggested that our proposed interpretation
would treat as franchise fees all costs related to franchise
requirements, even those allowed under the Cable Act. We disagree. For
example, the Act directs LFAs ``to assure that access to cable service
is not denied to any group of potential residential cable subscribers
because of the income of the residents of the local area in which such
group resides,'' a mandate which may cause LFAs to impose build-out
obligations on cable operators. Although these obligations are not free
for cable operators, we do not propose to interpret build-out
obligations as contributions to the LFA. Because build-out obligations
(unlike I-Net facilities) involve the construction of facilities that
are not specifically for the use or benefit of the LFA or any other
entity designated by the LFA, but rather are part of the provision of
cable service in the franchise area and the facilities ultimately may
result in profit to the cable operator, we do not think they should be
considered contributions to an LFA. Under this approach, the cost that
these obligations impose on cable operators would not count toward the
five-percent franchise fee cap. We seek comment on this proposed
interpretation. We also seek comment on whether there are other
requirements besides build-out obligations that are not specifically
for the use or benefit of the LFA or an entity designated the LFA and
therefore should not be considered contributions to an LFA.
22. Additionally, we tentatively conclude that this treatment of
cable-related, in-kind contributions should be applied to both new
entrants and incumbent cable operators. As discussed above, in adopting
rules and guidance implementing section 621(a)(1), including rules
governing the treatment of certain costs and fees charged by LFAs, the
Commission found that the existing operation of the local franchising
process constituted an unreasonable barrier to new entrants in the
marketplace for cable services and to their deployment of broadband.
Specifically, the Commission found that the local franchising process
unreasonably delays new entrants from upgrading their networks to
provide video services, which discourages investment in the fiber-based
infrastructure necessary for the provision of broadband services by
depriving new entrants of revenues needed to offset the costs of such
deployment. We acknowledge that this distinguishes new entrants from
incumbent cable operators, who have already deployed their
infrastructure for both video and broadband. Nevertheless, we believe
that applying the same treatment of cable-related, in-kind
contributions to both new entrants and incumbent cable operators would
ensure a more level playing field and that the Commission should not
place its thumb on the scale to give a regulatory advantage to any
competitor. Moreover, as the Commission has previously observed,
Section 622 ``does not distinguish between incumbent providers and new
entrants.'' We seek comment on this proposal.
23. We seek comment on the effect, if any, that our statutory
interpretation would have on LFAs' ability to impose cable-related, in-
kind obligations on new entrants and incumbents consistent with the
statutory provisions described above. To the extent that commenters
assert that it would unreasonably hamper LFAs' ability to impose such
obligations, we request that they provide specific cost data or other
information to support their position. Conversely, what effect, if any,
would excluding cable-related, in-kind contributions from ``franchise
fees'' (i.e., allowing LFAs to seek unlimited cable-related, in-kind
contributions on top of the five percent franchise fee permitted by
section 622) have on new entrants and incumbents? Would such exclusion
likely delay or deter infrastructure investment by new competitors?
Would it affect incumbent cable operators' ability to invest in new
facilities and services, including improving broadband services? We
also seek comment on the costs and benefits to consumers of our
proposed treatment of cable-related, in-kind contributions.
24. We propose to define ``cable-related, in-kind contributions''
to include ``any non-monetary contributions related to the provision of
cable services provided by cable operators as a condition or
requirement of a local franchise agreement, including but not limited
to free or discounted cable services and the use of cable facilities or
equipment. It does not include the cost of build-out requirements.''
Under this proposed definition, cable-related, in-kind contributions
would not have to be provided directly to the LFA to be subject to the
statutory five percent cap; rather, any cable-related, in-kind
contributions provided to the LFA or any other entity designated by the
LFA as a condition or requirement of a franchise agreement would be
subject to the cap, if not expressly exempt under section 622(g)(2). We
seek comment on this proposed definition. We request commenters to
provide examples of the types of cable-related, ``in-kind''
contributions that have been or are being required by LFAs. We further
propose that cable-related, in-kind contributions be valued for
purposes of the franchise fee cap at their fair market value. We seek
comment on this proposal, and how such a market valuation should be
performed. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether cable-related, in-
kind contributions should be valued at the cost to the cable operator.
B. Mixed-Use Networks
25. We tentatively conclude that the mixed-use network ruling
should be applied to incumbent cable operators to the extent that they
offer or begin offering non-cable services. Thus, we propose to
prohibit LFAs from using their video franchising authority to regulate
most non-cable services offered over cable systems by incumbent cable
operators. Non-cable services offered by incumbent cable operators
include telecommunications services and non-telecommunications
services. Telecommunications services offered by incumbent cable
operators may include, for example, some business data services. Non-
telecommunications services offered by incumbent cable operators may
include information services, such as broadband internet access
services, and private carrier services, such as certain types of
business data services. Incumbent cable operators may also offer
facilities-based interconnected Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP)
service, which has not been classified by the Commission as either a
telecommunications service or an information service but is clearly not
a cable service. We seek comment on whether there are other services
offered by incumbent cable operators that are
[[Page 51917]]
not listed above that are relevant to our analysis.
26. As an initial matter, we note that the court in Montgomery
County vacated the mixed-use rule only as applied to incumbent cable
operators that are not common carriers. The court, however, appears to
have left undisturbed application of the mixed-use ruling to incumbent
cable operators that are also common carriers. As explained above, some
incumbent cable operators provide telecommunications services over
their facilities. Under section 3(51) of the Act, a ``provider of
telecommunications services'' is a ``telecommunications carrier,''
which the statute directs ``shall be treated as a common carrier under
this Act only to the extent that it is engaged in providing
telecommunications services.'' Thus, an incumbent cable operator, to
the extent it offers telecommunications service, would be treated as a
common carrier subject to Title II of the Act. Section 602(7)(C) of the
Act, in turn, excludes from the term ``cable system'' ``a facility of a
common carrier which is subject, in whole or in part, to the provisions
of title II of this Act, except that such facility shall be considered
a cable system . . . to the extent such facility is used in the
transmission of [cable service].'' Accordingly, to the extent that any
incumbent cable operators offer any telecommunications services, we
tentatively conclude that they are covered under the common carrier
exception in section 602(7)(C), and thus can be regulated by LFAs only
to the extent they provide cable service. Although we recognize that
there are distinctions between the obstacles faced by new entrants and
incumbent cable operators, we see no basis in the statute to treat
differently incumbent cable operators that are common carriers and new
entrants that are common carriers for purposes of application of the
common carrier exception. We thus tentatively conclude that the mixed-
use network ruling prohibits LFAs from regulating the provision of any
services other than cable services offered over the cable systems of
incumbent cable operators that are common carriers, or from regulating
any facilities and equipment used in the provision of any services
other than cable services offered over the cable systems of incumbent
cable operators that are common carriers (with the exception of I-Nets,
as noted above). We seek comment on this analysis and the tentative
conclusions.
27. In addition, we seek comment on LFAs' authority to regulate the
provision of non-cable services by incumbent cable operators that are
not also common carriers. We also seek comment on LFAs' authority to
regulate a non-common carrier new entrant's provision of information
services. We request information on the extent to which incumbent cable
operators are not also common carriers. Are the incumbent cable
operators that are also common carriers mostly the largest incumbent
cable operators? Regarding non-cable services provided by incumbent
cable operators that are not common carriers, we tentatively conclude
that section 624(b) of the Act prohibits LFAs from using their
franchising authority to regulate the provision of information
services, including broadband internet access service. Under section
624(b), LFAs ``may not . . . establish requirements for video
programming or other information services.'' Section 624 does not
define the term ``information services,'' but the ``definitions''
section of the legislative history distinguishes ``information
service'' from ``cable service.'' The House Report states that ``[a]ll
services offered by a cable system that go beyond providing generally-
available video programming or other programming are not cable
services'' and ``a cable service may not include `active information
services' such as at-home shopping and banking that allow transactions
between subscribers and cable operators or third parties.'' We also
find significant that the description of ``information services''
contained in the 1984 Cable Act's legislative history--i.e., ``services
providing subscribers with the capacity to engage in transactions or to
store, transfer, forward, manipulate, or otherwise process information
or data [which] would not be cable services''--corresponds closely to
the 1996 Telecommunications Act's definition of ``information service''
contained in section 3(24) of the Act--i.e., ``the offering of a
capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming,
processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via
telecommunications.'' For all the reasons stated above, we believe that
for purposes of section 624(b), interpreting ``information services''
to have the meaning set forth in section 3(24) of the Act would best
reflect Congressional intent. We further note that the Commission
recently reinstated the ``information service'' classification of
broadband internet access service. We seek comment on this analysis.
28. Based on the above analysis, we tentatively conclude that the
statute also bars LFAs from regulating the provision of broadband
internet access and other information services by incumbent cable
operators that are not common carriers. Although section 624(b)(2)(B)
allows franchising authorities to enforce requirements for ``broad
categories of video programming or other services,'' when read in light
of Section 624(b)(1) and the legislative history, we believe that
Congress intended to bar LFAs from regulating information services. We
further note that under section 624(b), ``the franchising authority, to
the extent related to the establishment or operation of a cable system
. . . may establish requirements for facilities and equipment.'' In
light of our tentative finding that section 624(b)(1) bars LFAs from
regulating information services, we do not believe this provision
authorizes LFAs to regulate facilities or equipment to the extent they
are used to provide such services, including broadband internet access
service. We seek comment on this interpretation and our tentative
conclusion. Would such an interpretation best effectuate the statutory
purpose? We also seek comment on the extent to which LFAs currently
attempt to regulate the provision of information services by incumbent
cable operators or the facilities and equipment used in the provision
of such services. Do LFAs require incumbent cable operators to obtain a
separate franchise or pay franchise fees in connection with their
provision of broadband internet access or other information services,
and if so, what are the circumstances and rationale for such
requirements? What other franchise requirements do LFAs impose on
information services provided by incumbent cable operators? What
effect, if any, do such franchise requirements have on the deployment
of new information services, including broadband internet access
service?
29. In any event, we believe that LFA regulation of such services
would be inconsistent with longstanding federal policy. The Commission
has previously concluded that broadband internet access service is ``a
jurisdictionally interstate service because `a substantial portion of
internet traffic involves accessing interstate or foreign websites.'''
Therefore, we tentatively conclude that LFAs may not regulate such
interstate services and that doing so would frustrate the light-touch
information service framework established by Congress that the
Commission has previously found necessary to promote investment and
innovation. In the Restoring internet Freedom Order, the Commission
concluded that ``regulation of broadband internet access service
[[Page 51918]]
should be governed principally by a uniform set of federal regulations,
rather than by a patchwork that includes separate state and local
requirements.'' The Commission found that allowing state and local
governments to regulate broadband internet access service could disrupt
the procompetitive, deregulatory goals of the federal regulatory regime
and impair the provision of broadband internet access service by
requiring each provider to comply with a patchwork of separate and
potentially conflicting requirements across all of the different
jurisdictions in which it operates. The Commission therefore preempted
any state or local measures that would impose rules or requirements
that it had repealed or decided to refrain from imposing in that order
or that would impose more stringent requirements for any aspect of
broadband service addressed in that order. Among other things, the
Commission expressly preempted any ``economic'' or ``public utility-
type'' regulations, including entry and exit restrictions. For similar
reasons, we tentatively conclude that entry and exit restrictions
include a requirement that an incumbent cable operator obtain a
franchise to provide broadband internet access service and that LFAs
therefore are expressly preempted from requiring incumbent cable
operators to obtain franchises to provide broadband internet access
service. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. We also seek
comment on whether there are other regulations imposed by LFAs on
incumbent cable operators' provision of broadband internet access
service that should be considered entry and exit restrictions, or other
types of economic or public utility-type regulations, preempted by the
Commission.
30. Moreover, we tentatively conclude that it would be contrary to
the goals of the Communications Act to permit LFAs to treat incumbent
cable operators that are not also common carriers differently than
incumbent cable operators and new entrants that are also common
carriers in their provision of information services, including
broadband internet access services. Incumbent cable operators and new
entrants (whether they are common carriers or non-common carriers)
often compete against each other in the same markets, and often provide
nearly identical services to consumers. Thus, to regulate incumbent
cable operators that are not also common carriers more strictly, by
permitting LFAs to place franchise requirements on their non-cable
services and assess fees on these services, could put these incumbents
at a competitive disadvantage that section 621 was intended to avoid.
This competitive disadvantage could impact not only the incumbents'
provision of broadband internet access and other information services,
but also their provision of cable services. Such a result could
ultimately have a negative impact on consumers, thereby undermining the
goal of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Act to ``promote
competition'' across communications providers and ``to secure lower
prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications
consumers'' by reducing regulation. We seek comment on this analysis.
We believe these same concerns would apply to new entrants that are not
common carriers and seek comment on this analysis with respect to such
entities.
31. Finally, we seek comment on whether there are any other
statutory provisions that relate to the authority of LFAs to regulate
the provision of non-cable services offered over a cable system by an
incumbent cable operator or the facilities and equipment used in the
provision of such services. For example, NCTA cites several additional
provisions in support of its assertion that the Commission should apply
the mixed-use network ruling to incumbent cable operators: Section
621(a)(2) of the Act; Section 622 of the Act; Section 624(e) of the
Act; Section 230(b) of the Act; and Section 253 of the Act. We seek
comment on the extent to which these and any other relevant statutory
provisions relate to the authority of LFAs to regulate the provision of
non-cable services offered over a cable system by an incumbent cable
operator.
C. State Franchising Regulations
32. We seek comment on whether to apply the proposals and tentative
conclusions set forth herein, as well as the Commission's decisions in
the First Report and Order and Second Report and Order, as clarified in
the Order on Reconsideration, to franchising actions taken at the state
level and state regulations that impose requirements on local
franchising. In the First Report and Order, the Commission adopted time
limits for LFAs to render a final decision on a new entrant's franchise
application and established a remedy for applicants that do not receive
a decision within the applicable time frame; concluded that it was
unlawful for LFAs to refuse to grant a franchise to a new entrant on
the basis of unreasonable build-out mandates; clarified which revenue-
generating services should be included in a new entrant's franchise fee
revenue base and which franchise-related costs should and should not be
included within the statutory five percent franchise fee cap; concluded
that LFAs may not make unreasonable demands of new entrants relating to
PEG channels and I-Nets; adopted the mixed-use network ruling for new
entrants; and preempted local franchising laws, regulations, and
agreements to the extent they conflict with the rules adopted in that
order. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission extended to
incumbent cable operators the rulings in the First Report and Order
relating to franchise fees and mixed-use networks and the PEG and I-Net
rulings that were deemed applicable to incumbent cable operators, i.e.,
the findings that the non-capital costs of PEG requirements must be
offset from the cable operator's franchise fee payments, that it is not
necessary to adopt standard terms for PEG channels, and that it is not
per se unreasonable for LFAs to require the payment of ongoing costs to
support PEG, so long as such support costs as applicable are subject to
the franchise fee cap. As explained above, the Commission limited its
decisions in the First Report and Order and Second Report and Order to
actions or inactions at the local level where a state has not
specifically circumscribed the LFA's authority, finding that many of
the state franchising laws had been in effect for only a short period
of time and that it did not have a sufficient record to apply these
decisions to franchising decisions where a state is involved. The
Commission, however, indicated that it would revisit this issue in the
future if it received evidence that the findings in the First Report
and Order and/or the Second Report and Order were of practical
relevance to the franchising process at the state level. More than ten
years has passed since the Commission first considered whether to apply
its decisions interpreting section 621(a)(1) to state-level franchising
actions and state regulations that impose requirements on local
franchising. Accordingly, we invite comment on whether we should apply
the proposals and tentative conclusions discussed above, as well as any
or all aspects of the Commission's decisions in the First Report and
Order and Second Report and Order, to state level franchising actions
and state regulations that impose requirements on local franchising. Is
there any statutory basis to maintain the distinction between state-
level franchising actions and local franchising actions? Do state level
franchising actions or state regulations governing the local franchise
process today impede competition or discourage investment in
infrastructure that can be
[[Page 51919]]
used to provide services, including video, voice, and broadband
internet access service, to consumers?
IV. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Act Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and
rules proposed in this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Second FNPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA.
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments provided on the first page of the Second
FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the Second FNPRM, including
this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA). In addition, the Second FNPRM and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
B. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
2. Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
(Act) prohibits local franchising authorities (LFAs) from unreasonably
refusing to award competitive franchises for the provision of cable
television services. The Commission has adopted rules implementing
section 621(a)(1), including rules governing the treatment of certain
costs and fees charged to cable operators by LFAs and LFAs' regulation
of cable operators' ``mixed-use'' networks (i.e., facilities used to
provide both cable services and non-cable services). In Montgomery
County, Md. et al. v. FCC, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit addressed challenges to these rules. The court directed
the Commission on remand to provide an explanation for its decision to
treat cable-related, in-kind contributions charged to cable operators
by LFAs as ``franchise fees'' subject to the statutory five percent cap
on franchise fees set forth in section 622(g) of the Act. The court
also directed the Commission to provide a statutory basis for its
decision to extend its ``mixed-use'' ruling--which prohibits LFAs from
regulating the provision of services other than cable services offered
over cable systems used to provide both cable services and non-cable
services--to incumbent cable operators that are not common carriers.
3. The Second FNPRM tentatively concludes that cable-related, in-
kind contributions required by LFAs from cable operators as a condition
or requirement of a franchise agreement should be treated as
``franchise fees'' subject to the statutory five percent franchise fee
cap set forth in section 622 of the Act, with limited exceptions. For
any franchise granted prior to 1984, section 622(g)(2)(B) contains an
exclusion for PEG support payments. For any franchise granted after
1984, section 622(g)(2)(C) contains a narrow exclusion covering in-
kind, cable related payments for ``capital costs which are required by
the franchise to be incurred by the cable operator for public,
educational, or governmental [PEG] access facilities.'' Accordingly,
the Second FNPRM tentatively concludes that PEG support payments
required by franchises granted prior to 1984 and PEG capital costs
required by franchises granted after 1984 are cable-related, in-kind
contributions excluded from the five percent cap. The Second FNPRM also
tentatively concludes that this treatment of cable-related, in-kind
contributions should be applied to both new entrants and incumbent
cable operators. The Second FNPRM tentatively concludes that doing so
would ensure a more level playing field and that the FCC should not
place its thumb on the scale to give a regulatory advantage to any
competitor.
4. The Second FNPRM proposes to define ``cable-related, in-kind
contributions'' to include ``any non-monetary contributions related to
the provision of cable services provided by cable operators as a
condition or requirement of a local franchise agreement, such as free
or discounted cable services, and the use of cable facilities or
equipment. It does not include the cost of franchise obligations that
do not directly benefit the LFA, including, but not limited to, build-
out requirements.'' The Second FNPRM further proposes that cable-
related, in-kind contributions be valued for purposes of the franchise
fee cap at their fair market value.
5. Additionally, the Second FNPRM tentatively concludes that the
mixed-use network ruling should be applied to incumbent cable operators
to the extent that they offer or begin offering non-cable services,
prohibiting LFAs from using their video franchising authority to
regulate certain non-cable services offered over cable systems by
incumbent cable operators. The Second FNPRM tentatively concludes that
the mixed-use network ruling prohibits LFAs from regulating the
provision of any services other than cable services offered over the
cable systems of incumbent cable operators that are common carriers.
Further, the Second FNPRM tentatively concludes that LFAs may not use
their franchising authority to regulate incumbent cable operators'
provision of information services, including broadband internet access
service. The Second FNPRM also tentatively concludes that consistent
with the Commission's decision in the Restoring internet Freedom Order,
which preempted any state or local measures that would impose rules or
requirements that the Commission repealed or decided to refrain from
imposing in that order or that would impose more stringent requirements
for any aspect of broadband service addressed in that order, LFAs are
expressly preempted from requiring incumbent cable operators to obtain
franchises to provide broadband internet access service.
6. The Second FNPRM also seeks comment on whether to apply the
proposals and tentative conclusions discussed in the instant
proceeding, as well as the Commission's decisions in the First Report
and Order and Second Report and Order, as clarified in the Order on
Reconsideration, to franchising actions taken at the state level and
state regulations imposing requirements on local franchising.
C. Legal Basis
7. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 4(i),
303. 602, 621, 622, and 624 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 303, 522, 541, 542, and 544.
D. Description and Estimates of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
8. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. Below, we
provide a description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of
the number of such small entities, where feasible.
[[Page 51920]]
9. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at
the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly
affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size
standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory
flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of
Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having
fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent
99.9% of all businesses in the United States which translates to 28.8
million businesses.
10. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
Nationwide, as of Aug 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small
organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits
with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
11. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census
Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments indicates that there
were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United
States. Of this number there were 37,132 General purpose governments
(county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than
50,000 and 12,184 Special purpose governments (independent school
districts and special districts) with populations of less than 50,000.
The 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data for most types of governments in the
local government category shows that the majority of these governments
have populations of less than 50,000. Based on this data we estimate
that at least 49,316 local government jurisdictions fall in the
category of ``small governmental jurisdictions.''
12. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services,
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming
distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite television distribution services
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in
this industry.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard
for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such
companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census data for 2012
shows that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this
total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this
size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered
small.
13. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation Standard). The
Commission has developed its own small business size standards, for the
purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a
``small cable company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers,
nationwide. Industry data indicate that, of 4,600 cable operators
nationwide, all but 9 are small under this size standard. In addition,
under the Commission's rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system
serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Industry data indicate that, of
4,600 systems nationwide, 3,900 have fewer than 15,000 subscribers,
based on the same records. Thus, under this second size standard, the
Commission believes that most cable systems are small.
14. Cable System Operators. The Act also contains a size standard
for small cable system operators, which is ``a cable operator that,
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1
percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated
with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the
aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' There are approximately 52,403,705
cable subscribers in the United States today. Accordingly, an operator
serving fewer than 524,037 subscribers shall be deemed a small
operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total revenues
of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate.
Based on the available data, we find that all but nine independent
cable operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual
revenues exceed $250 million. Although it seems certain that some of
these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross
annual revenues exceed $250 million, we note that the Commission
neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system
operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues
exceed $250 million, and therefore we are unable to estimate more
accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as
small under the definition in the Communications Act.
15. Open Video Services. Open Video Service (OVS) systems provide
subscription services. The open video system framework was established
in 1996, and is one of four statutorily recognized options for the
provision of video programming services by local exchange carriers. The
OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution of video
programming other than through cable systems. Because OVS operators
provide subscription services, OVS falls within the SBA small business
size standard covering cable services, which is ``Wired
Telecommunications Carriers.'' The SBA has developed a small business
size standard for this category, which is: All such firms having 1,500
or fewer employees. To gauge small business prevalence for the OVS
service, the Commission relies on data currently available from the
U.S. Census for the year 2012. According to that source, there were
3,117 firms that in 2012 were Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Of
these, 3,083 operated with less than 1,000 employees. Based on this
data, the majority of these firms can be considered small. In addition,
we note that the Commission has certified some OVS operators, with some
now providing service. Broadband service providers (BSPs) are currently
the only significant holders of OVS certifications or local OVS
franchises. The Commission does not have financial or employment
information regarding the entities authorized to provide OVS, some of
which may not yet be operational. Thus, at least some of the OVS
operators may qualify as small entities. The Commission further notes
that it has certified approximately 45 OVS operators to serve 116
areas, and some of these are currently providing service. Affiliates of
Residential Communications Network, Inc. (RCN) received approval to
operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, DC, and other
areas. RCN has sufficient revenues to assure that they do not qualify
as a small business entity. Little financial information is available
for the other entities that are authorized to provide OVS and are not
[[Page 51921]]
yet operational. Given that some entities authorized to provide OVS
service have not yet begun to generate revenues, the Commission
concludes that up to 44 OVS operators (those remaining) might qualify
as small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies
adopted herein.
E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
16. The rules proposed in the Second FNPRM would not impose any
additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements and any compliance
requirements imposed by the proposed rules are expected to have only a
de minimis effect on small governmental jurisdictions. LFAs would
continue to perform their role of reviewing and making decisions on
applications for cable franchises and any modifications to the local
franchising process resulting from the proposed rules would further
streamline that process. The proposed rules would streamline the local
franchising process by providing guidance as to the appropriate
treatment of cable-related, in-kind contributions demanded by LFAs for
purposes of the statutory five percent franchise fee cap, what
constitutes ``cable-related, in-kind contributions,'' and how such
contributions are to be valued. In addition, the proposed rules would
streamline the local franchising process by making clear that LFAs may
not use their video franchising authority to regulate the provision of
certain non-cable services offered over cable systems by incumbent
cable operators.
F. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
1. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
2. To the extent that the proposed rules are matters of statutory
interpretation, we tentatively find that the proposed rules are
statutorily mandated and therefore no meaningful alternatives exist.
Moreover, as noted above, the proposed rules are expected to have only
a de minimis effect on small governmental jurisdictions. The proposed
rules would streamline the local franchising process by providing
additional guidance to LFAs.
3. In addition, the proposal to treat cable-related, in-kind
contributions as ``franchise fees'' subject the statutory five percent
franchise fee cap, with one limited exception, would benefit small
cable operators by ensuring that LFAs do not circumvent the statutory
five percent cap by demanding, for example, unlimited free or
discounted services. This in turn would help to ensure that local
franchising requirements do not deter small cable operators from
investing in new services and facilities.
G. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
4. None.
H. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
5. This document does not contain any proposed information
collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new
or modified information collection burden for small business concerns
with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork
Relief Act of 2002.
I. Ex Parte Rules
6. Permit-But-Disclose. This proceeding shall be treated as a
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with section 1.1206(b) of the rules. In proceedings
governed by section 1.49(f) of the rules or for which the Commission
has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations,
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf).
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the
Commission's ex parte rules.
J. Filing Procedures
7. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS).
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
[ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
[ssquf] Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street SW, TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
[ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
[[Page 51922]]
Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
[ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
8. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex
parte submissions will be available for public inspection during
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, CY-A257, Washington, DC
20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents will
be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe
Acrobat.
9. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the FCC's
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice),
(202) 418-0432 (TTY).
10. Additional Information. For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Kathy Berthot, [email protected], of the Media
Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-7454.
V. Ordering Clauses
11. Accordingly, It is ordered that, pursuant to the authority
found in Sections 1, 4(i), 303, 602, 621, 622, and 624 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 303,
522, 541, 542, and 544, this Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking is adopted.
12. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-22356 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P