Local Franchising Authorities' Regulation of Cable Operators and Cable Television Services, 44725-44750 [2019-18230]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
VII. Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will
submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Dated: August 8, 2019.
Michael Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
*
*
*
Fennel, florence, fresh
leaves and stalk ................
Fruit, pome, group 11–10 .....
*
*
*
*
Herb subgroup 19A ..............
Kohlrabi .................................
Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B .........................
Leafy greens subgroup 4–
16A ....................................
Nut, tree, group 14–12 .........
*
*
Communications Commission, 445 12th
Street SW, Room CY–A257,
Washington, DC 20554. This document
will also be available via ECFS at
*
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/
attachments/FCC-19-80A1.docx.
0.1 Documents will be available
0.02 electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word,
and/or Adobe Acrobat. The complete
text may be purchased from the
*
Commission’s copy contractor, 445 12th
0.4 Street SW, Room CY–B402, Washington,
0.05 DC 20554. Alternative formats are
available for people with disabilities
0.1
(Braille, large print, electronic files,
1 audio format), by sending an email to
0.02 fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
*
418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432
(TTY).
Parts per
million
Commodity
*
44725
*
*
Vegetable, brassica, head
and stem, group 5–16 .......
0.05
Synopsis
1. In this Third Report and Order
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
(Third Order), we interpret sections of
amended as follows:
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8–
10 ......................................
0.02 the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (the Act) that govern how
PART 180—[AMENDED]
local franchising authorities (LFAs) may
*
*
*
*
*
■ 1. The authority citation for part 180
regulate cable operators and cable
[FR Doc. 2019–18386 Filed 8–26–19; 8:45 am]
television services, with specific focus
continues to read as follows:
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
on issues remanded from the United
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
■ 2. In § 180.505, amend the table in
Circuit (Sixth Circuit) in Montgomery
paragraph (a)(1) as follows:
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
County, Md. et al. v. FCC.
■ i. Add alphabetically the entries
COMMISSION
2. Every LFA as well as every ‘‘cable
‘‘Artichoke, globe’’; ‘‘Brassica, leafy
operator’’ that offers ‘‘cable service’’
greens, subgroup 4–16B’’; ‘‘Celtuce’’;
47 CFR Part 76
must comply with the cable franchising
‘‘Cherry subgroup 12–12A’’; ‘‘Fennel,
provisions of Title VI of the Act. Section
[MB Docket No. 05–311; FCC 19–80]
florence, fresh leaves and stalk’’; ‘‘Fruit,
621(b)(1) prohibits a cable operator from
pome, group 11–10’’; ‘‘Herb subgroup
Local Franchising Authorities’
providing cable service without first
19A’’; ‘‘Kohlrabi’’; ‘‘Leaf petiole
Regulation of Cable Operators and
obtaining a cable franchise, while
vegetable subgroup 22B’’; ‘‘Leafy greens Cable Television Services
section 621(a)(1) circumscribes the
subgroup 4–16A’’; ‘‘Nut, tree, group 14–
power of LFAs to award or deny such
AGENCY: Federal Communications
12’’; ‘‘Vegetable, brassica, head and
franchises. In addition, section 622
Commission.
stem, group 5–16’’; and ‘‘Vegetable,
allows LFAs to charge franchise fees
fruiting, group 8–10’’;
ACTION: Final rule.
and sets the upper boundaries of those
■ ii. Remove the entries for ‘‘Fruit,
fees. Notably, section 622 caps the fee
SUMMARY
:
In
this
document,
the
Federal
pome, group 11’’; ‘‘Nut, tree, group 14’’;
at five percent of a ‘‘cable operator’s
Communications
Commission
‘‘Pistachio’’; ‘‘Turnip, greens’’;
gross revenues derived . . . from the
(Commission)
adopts
rules
governing
‘‘Vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5’’;
operation of the cable system to provide
how
local
franchising
authorities
may
‘‘Vegetable fruiting, group 8’’; and
cable service.’’ 1 When Congress initially
regulate
cable
operators
and
cable
‘‘Vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group
adopted
these sections in 1984, it
television services.
4’’.
explained
that it was setting forth a
DATES: These rule revisions are effective
The additions read as follows:
federal policy to ‘‘define and limit the
on September 26, 2019.
authority that a franchising authority
§ 180.505 Emamectin; tolerances for
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
residues.
may exercise through the franchise
additional information on this
process.’’ Congress also expressly
(a) * * *
proceeding, contact Maria Mullarkey or
preempted any state or local laws or
(1) * * *
Raelynn Remy of the Media Bureau,
actions that conflict with those
Policy Division, at Maria.Mullarkey@
Parts per
definitions and limits.2
Commodity
fcc.gov, Raelynn.Remy@fcc.gov or (202)
million
3. As summarized in detail in the
418–2120.
Second Further Notice of Proposed
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
Rulemaking (FNPRM) (83 FR 51911,
*
*
*
*
*
summary of the Commission’s Third
Oct. 15, 2018), the Commission has an
Report and Order, FCC 19–80, adopted
extensive history of rulemakings and
Artichoke, globe ....................
0.05
on August 1, 2019. The full text is
litigation interpreting sections 621 and
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4–16B .....................
0.2 available for public inspection and
1 47 U.S.C. 542.
Celtuce ..................................
0.1 copying during regular business hours
2 Id. 556(c).
Cherry subgroup 12–12A .....
0.09 in the FCC Reference Center, Federal
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Aug 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
*
PO 00000
*
Frm 00045
*
Fmt 4700
*
Sfmt 4700
*
E:\FR\FM\27AUR1.SGM
27AUR1
44726
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
622. In short, the Commission in 2007
released a First Report and Order (72 FR
13189, March 21, 2007) to provide
guidance about terms and conditions in
local franchise agreements that are
unreasonable under section 621 of the
Act with respect to new entrants’
franchise agreements.3 Two major
conclusions that the Commission
adopted are that (1) non-cash, ‘‘in-kind’’
contributions from cable operators to
franchise authorities are franchise fees
that count toward the statutory cap of
five percent of cable operator revenue,
and (2) franchising authorities may not
use their cable franchising authority to
regulate non-cable services (like
telephone and broadband services) that
the new entrants deliver over their
mixed-use networks (i.e., networks that
carry broadband services, voice services,
and other non-cable services, in
addition to video programming
services). The Commission also sought
comment on whether to extend those
conclusions to agreements that LFAs
have with incumbent cable operators,
and ultimately decided in a Second
Report and Order (72 FR 65670, Nov.
23, 2007) and an Order on
Reconsideration (80 FR 12088, Mar. 6,
2015) that those conclusions should
apply to incumbent cable operators.
4. In Montgomery County, the Sixth
Circuit addressed challenges by LFAs to
the Second Report and Order and the
Order on Reconsideration.4 The court
agreed that in-kind (i.e., non-cash)
contributions are 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—such as free or
discounted cable services or obligations
related to PEG channels—as franchise
3 The term ‘‘new entrants’’ as used in the First
Report and Order refers to entities that choose to
offer ‘‘cable service’’ over a ‘‘cable system’’ utilizing
public rights-of-way and thus are deemed under the
Act to be ‘‘cable operator[s]’’ that must obtain a
franchise. Such new entrants largely were
telecommunications carriers subject to Title II of the
Act that were seeking to enter the cable services
market.
4 Montgomery County, 863 F.3d at 487.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Aug 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
fees.5 LFAs had claimed that the
Commission’s interpretation would
limit LFAs’ ability to enforce their
statutory authority to require cable
operators to dedicate channel capacity
for PEG use and to impose build-out
obligations in low-income areas, and the
court noted that the Commission’s
orders did not reflect any consideration
of this concern. The court also stated
that the Commission 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.
5. The court in Montgomery County
also agreed with LFAs that neither the
Second Report and Order nor the Order
on Reconsideration offered a valid
statutory basis for the Commission’s
application of its prior ‘‘mixed-use
ruling’’ to incumbent cable operators.6
Under the mixed-use rule, ‘‘LFAs’
jurisdiction applies only to the
provision of cable services over cable
systems’’ and ‘‘an LFA may not use its
video franchising authority to attempt to
regulate a LEC’s entire network beyond
the provision of cable services.’’ The
court stated that the Commission’s
decision in the First Report and Order
to apply the mixed-use rule to new
entrants had been defensible because
5 In the First Report and Order, the Commission
ruled that ‘‘any requests made by LFAs that are
unrelated to the provision of cable services by a
new competitive entrant are subject to the statutory
5 percent franchise fee cap.’’ This ruling was
upheld by the Sixth Circuit in Alliance. The
Commission later relied on the First Report and
Order to conclude that ‘‘in-kind payments involving
both cable and non-cable services’’ count toward
the franchise fee cap. The court found that the
Order on Reconsideration incorrectly asserted that
the First Report and Order had already treated ‘‘inkind’’ cable-related exactions as franchise fees and
that the Sixth Circuit had approved such treatment
in Alliance. The court also found that the First
Report and Order did not make clear that cablerelated exactions are franchise fees under section
622(g)(1). In this regard, the court pointed out that
the Commission specifically told the Sixth Circuit
in Alliance that the First Report and Order’s
‘‘analysis of in-kind payments was expressly
limited to payments that do not involve the
provision of cable service.’’
6 The court noted that LFAs’ primary concern
with the mixed-use ruling is that it would prevent
them from regulating ‘‘institutional networks’’ or ‘‘INets’’—communication networks that are
constructed or operated by the cable operator and
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 rule was not
meant to prevent LFAs from regulating I-Nets.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 mixeduse rule 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 rule 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 basis for the Commission’s
decision to extend the mixed-use rule to
incumbent cable operators. Accordingly,
the court concluded that the
Commission’s extension of the mixeduse rule to incumbent cable operators
that are not common carriers was
arbitrary and capricious. The court
vacated the mixed-use rule 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.’’
6. The Commission in September
2018 issued the Second FNPRM to
address the issues raised by the remand
from the Sixth Circuit in Montgomery
County.
7. We largely adopt our tentative
conclusions in the Second FNPRM.7
First, we conclude that cable-related, inkind contributions required by LFAs
from cable operators as a condition or
requirement of a franchise agreement
are franchise fees subject to the statutory
five percent cap on franchise fees set
forth in section 622 of the Act. We find
that the Act exempts capital
contributions associated with the
acquisition or improvement of a PEG
facility from this definition and remind
LFAs that under the Act they may only
require ‘‘adequate’’ PEG access channel
capacity, facilities, or financial support.
Second, we find that our mixed-use rule
applies to incumbent cable operators.
Third, we find that the Act preempts
any state or local regulation of a cable
operator’s non-cable services that would
7 As discussed below, we define ‘‘cable related,
in-kind contributions’’ slightly differently than
proposed, and our reasoning for not applying buildout costs is different than what we proposed.
E:\FR\FM\27AUR1.SGM
27AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
impose obligations on franchised cable
operators beyond what Title VI of the
Act allows. Finally, we decide that our
guidance related to the local franchising
process in this docket also will apply to
state-level franchising actions and state
regulations that impose requirements on
local franchising.
8. Section 622 of the Act contains a
broad definition of franchise fees. For
the reasons provided below, we find
that most cable-related, in-kind
contributions are encompassed within
this definition and thus must be
included for purposes of calculating the
statutory five percent cap on such fees.
In this section, we first explain our
interpretation of section 622 and why
the definition of franchise fees includes
most cable-related, in-kind
contributions. We then explain how our
interpretation applies to certain
common franchise agreement terms.
Lastly, we explain the process that LFAs
and cable operators should use to
amend their franchise agreements to
conform to this Order.
9. Addressing the first issue raised by
the remand from the Sixth Circuit in
Montgomery County, we adopt our
tentative conclusion that we should
treat cable-related, in-kind
contributions 8 required by LFAs from
cable operators as a condition or
requirement of a franchise agreement as
franchise fees subject to the statutory
five percent cap set forth in section 622
of the Act, with limited exceptions as
described herein. We also adopt our
tentative conclusion that this treatment
of cable-related, in-kind contributions
should be applied to both new entrants
and incumbent cable operators. As
explained below, we find that this
interpretation is consistent with the
statutory language and legislative
history.
10. Section 622 of Title VI, entitled
‘‘Franchise fees,’’ governs cable operator
obligations with respect to franchise
fees. Specifically, section 622(a) states
that any cable operator may be required
under the terms of any franchise
agreement to pay a franchise fee, and
section 622(b) sets forth the limitation
that ‘‘[f]or any twelve-month period, 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
8 We define this term 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,
including but not limited to free or discounted
cable service to public buildings, non-capital costs
in support of PEG access, and costs attributable to
the construction of I–Nets. It does not include the
costs of complying with build-out and customer
service requirements.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Aug 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
such period from the operation of the
cable system to provide cable services.’’
Notably, section 622(g) defines the term
‘‘franchise fee’’ for purposes of this
section.
11. To understand what types of
contributions from cable operators are
franchise fees subject to the five percent
statutory cap, the key provision is the
section 622(g) definition, which states
that ‘‘the term ‘franchise fee’ includes
any tax, fee, or assessment of any kind
imposed by a franchising authority or
other governmental entity on a cable
operator or cable subscriber, or both,
solely because of their status as such,’’
subject to certain enumerated
exceptions. Specifically, according to
the definition, the term ‘‘franchise fee’’
does not include the following: (1) Any
tax, fee, or assessment of general
applicability; 9 (2) in the case of any
franchise in effect on October 30, 1984,
payments which are required by the
franchise to be made by the cable
operator during the term of such
franchise for, or in support of the use of,
PEG access facilities; (3) in the case of
any franchise granted after October 30,
1984, capital costs which are required
by the franchise to be incurred by the
cable operator for PEG access facilities;
(4) 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; 10 or (5) any fee
9 In the Second FNPRM, we noted that, by
definition, a tax, fee, or assessment of general
applicability does not cover cable-related, in-kind
contributions, and therefore we tentatively
concluded that this exclusion is not applicable to
such contributions. No commenter disputes this
analysis, and we affirm it here.
10 In the First Report and Order, the Commission
found that the term ‘‘incidental’’ in this section
should be limited to the list of incidentals in the
statutory provision, as well as certain other minor
expenses, and the court in Alliance upheld this
determination. The Commission also emphasized
that non-incidental costs should be counted toward
the five percent cap on franchise fees, and listed
various examples including 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, and in-kind services
unrelated to the provision of cable services. In the
Second FNPRM, we explained that, although the
statute does not define the term ‘‘incidental,’’ based
on the interpretive canon of noscitur a sociis, the
exemplary list delineated in the text of the
provision as well as the applicable legislative
history 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. Consistent with this analysis and
precedent, we find that cable-related, in-kind
contributions demanded by an LFA do not qualify
as ‘‘incidental’’ charges excluded in section
622(g)(2)(D). No commenter disputes our
interpretation of this particular exclusion.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
44727
imposed under Title 17.11 Because
Congress spoke directly to the issue of
what constitutes a franchise fee in
section 622(g), our analysis of whether
cable-related, in-kind exactions are
included in the franchise fee is
appropriately focused on this statutory
language.
12. As a preliminary matter, we note
our prior finding, which was upheld by
the Sixth Circuit in Montgomery
County, that the franchise fee definition
in section 622(g) can encompass both
monetary payments imposed by a
franchising authority or other
governmental entity on a cable operator,
as well as ‘‘in-kind’’ payments—i.e.,
payments consisting of something other
than money, such as goods and
services 12—that are so imposed.13 The
definition of ‘‘franchise fee’’ in section
622(g)(1) broadly covers ‘‘any tax, fee, or
assessment of any kind imposed by a
franchising authority or other
governmental entity on a cable operator
. . . solely because of [its] status as
such.’’ Because the statute does not
define the terms ‘‘tax,’’ ‘‘fee,’’ or
‘‘assessment,’’ we look to the ordinary
meaning of such terms.14 As the court
explained in Montgomery County, the
definitions of the terms ‘‘tax’’ and
‘‘assessment,’’ in particular, ‘‘can
include noncash exactions.’’ Further, as
11 In the Second FNPRM, we explained that this
section excludes from the definition of franchise
fees any 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. No commenter disputes this analysis,
and we affirm it here.
12 According to the record, LFAs in some cases
require a grant or other monetary contribution
earmarked for cable-related services, such as PEG
and I-Net support. While we focus here on whether
cable-related, in-kind (non-monetary) contributions
are subject to the five percent cap on franchise fees,
we note that these monetary contributions are
subject to the franchise fee cap, unless otherwise
excluded under section 622(g)(2).
13 We reject the argument that franchise
considerations are not ‘‘imposed’’ by a franchising
authority because they are negotiated in an armslength transaction between the parties and ‘‘are not
established by force.’’ The definition of the term
‘‘impose’’ is not limited to ‘‘established as if by
force,’’ but can also mean ‘‘to establish or apply by
authority.’’ Further, under this narrow
interpretation of the term, no monetary or in-kind
payments could be construed as a franchise fee if
they are negotiated by the parties as terms of the
franchise agreement. As NCTA points out, ‘‘[b]y this
standard, even a franchise agreement containing a
requirement that the cable operator pay five percent
of gross revenues to the franchising authority would
not contain a franchise fee, since the five percent
fee was included in a negotiated document and was
not imposed by government fiat.’’
14 We disagree with NATOA et al.’s contention
that the Commission ‘‘nowhere analyzes or explains
why [certain] franchise requirements are
‘assessments’ or ‘exactions.’ ’’ Rather, we find that
an ‘‘assessment,’’ the term used in the statute,
includes any contribution imposed by government,
based on its ordinary meaning.
E:\FR\FM\27AUR1.SGM
27AUR1
44728
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
the court observed, section 622(g)(1)
‘‘more specifically defines ‘franchise
fee’ to include ‘any tax, fee, or
assessment of any kind[,]’ . . . which
requires us to give those terms
maximum breadth.’’ Thus, consistent
with the court’s conclusion on this
issue, the term franchise fee in section
622(g)(1) includes non-monetary
payments. We, therefore, reject
arguments that it should be construed to
cover only monetary payments.15
13. As the court noted in Montgomery
County, ‘‘that the term ‘franchise fee’
can include noncash exactions, of
course, does not mean that it necessarily
does include every one of them.’’ As
such, the next step in our analysis is to
evaluate specifically whether cablerelated, in-kind contributions are
included within the franchise fees. The
Commission previously determined that
in-kind contributions unrelated to the
provision of cable service are franchise
fees subject to the statutory five percent
cap, and the court’s decision in
Montgomery County upheld this
interpretation.16 In making this
determination, the Commission pointed
to examples in the record where LFAs
demanded in-kind contributions
unrelated to the provision of cable
services in the context of franchise
negotiations, and it explained that such
requests do not fall within any of the
exempted categories in section 622(g)(2)
and thus should be considered a
franchise fee under section 622(g)(1).17
14. We find that there is no basis in
the statute for exempting all cablerelated, in-kind contributions for
purposes of the five percent franchise
15 Contrary to these arguments, the terms used in
the statute are not limited to monetary payments.
Moreover, these arguments ignore Congress’
specification that the franchise fee includes ‘‘any
tax, fee, or assessment of any kind,’’ essentially
reading this expansive language out of the statute.
For example, although Anne Arundel County et al.
argue ‘‘that generally, taxes, fees, and assessments
are monetary, but that in exceptional circumstances
(such as forfeitures) non-monetary obligations may
also qualify,’’ there is nothing in the statute—which
specifically applies to a tax, fee, or assessment of
any kind—or in the definition of these terms that
supports this statement.
16 Contrary to the contention of NATOA et al., the
Commission’s finding in the First Report and Order
that in-kind contributions unrelated to the
provision of cable services are franchise fees subject
to the statutory five percent cap was undisturbed
by subsequent court decisions in Alliance and
Montgomery County. The court in Montgomery
County vacated the orders to the extent they treat
cable-related, in-kind exactions as franchise fees,
and thus the Commission’s finding with regard to
in-kind contributions unrelated to the provision of
cable services still stands.
17 In the First Report and Order, the Commission
cited examples of in-kind contributions unrelated to
the provision of cable services from the record,
including requests for traffic light control systems,
scholarships, and video hookups for a holiday
celebration.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Aug 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
fee cap or for distinguishing between
cable-related, in-kind contributions and
in-kind contributions unrelated to the
provision of cable services. As noted
above, the section 622(g)(1) franchise fee
definition broadly covers ‘‘any tax, fee,
or assessment of any kind,’’ and we
conclude that cable-related, in-kind
contributions fall within this definition.
There is nothing in this language that
limits in-kind contributions included in
the franchise fee. In fact, Congress
specified that the definition covers
‘‘any’’ tax, fee, or assessment ‘‘of any
kind,’’ which means those terms should
be interpreted expansively and given
‘‘maximum breadth.’’ 18
15. Further, there is no general
exemption for cable-related, in-kind
contributions in the five excluded
categories listed in section 622(g)(2).
Only two of the exclusions encompass
two very specific kinds of cable-related,
in-kind contributions, but not all such
contributions generally. In particular,
section 622(g)(2)(B) excludes payments
required by the franchise to be made by
the cable operator for, or in support of
the use of, PEG access facilities (for
franchises in effect on October 30,
1984), and section 622(g)(2)(C) excludes
capital costs which are required by the
franchise to be incurred by the cable
operator for PEG access facilities (for
franchises granted after October 30,
1984). We agree with ACA that the
structure of the relevant statutory
provision is ‘‘straightforward,’’
providing a broad definition of franchise
fee, ‘‘then expressly provid[ing] a
limited number of exceptions to this
definition, none of which is so broad as
to include all cable-related, in-kind
contributions.’’ 19
16. Moreover, the fact that Congress
carved out specific exceptions to the
franchise fee definition for certain PEGrelated contributions bolsters the
conclusion that Congress did not intend
to establish a general exemption for all
cable-related, in-kind contributions
18 Anne Arundel County et al. make the
conclusory statement that ‘‘[r]egulatory obligations
are clearly not a tax or fee,’’ without citing a
definition of these terms or including the term
‘‘assessment,’’ and they make no mention of the
court’s own conclusion in Montgomery County that
the term franchise fee ‘‘can include noncash
exactions.’’
19 According to Anne Arundel County et al., the
Commission incorrectly implies that ‘‘unless
something falls within an exception, it must be a
tax, fee, or assessment.’’ However, this is
inconsistent with our analysis, in which we first
evaluate whether a type of contribution meets the
definition of franchise fee in section 622(g)(1) and,
if so, then determine whether it falls within a
specified exception in section 622(g)(2). It is also
inconsistent with our conclusion herein that certain
requirements, such as customer service and buildout requirements, are not covered by the definition
of franchise fee.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
from treatment as franchise fees.
Because support for PEG access
facilities and PEG capital costs fall
within the broader category of cablerelated, in-kind contributions, Congress
would not have needed to craft these
narrow exceptions if all cable-related,
in-kind contributions generally were
exempted. We disagree with the
contention that the specific exceptions
in section 622(g)(2) were intended to
address only ‘‘payments that otherwise
might be considered franchise fees,’’
and that ‘‘[o]ther cable-related
obligations were not considered ‘fees’ to
begin with, let alone payments that
required a specific exemption.’’ This
argument erroneously constricts the
definition of franchise fees to apply only
to ‘‘fees,’’ while the statute more broadly
includes ‘‘any tax, fee, or assessment of
any kind.’’ Further, we believe it is more
consistent with the statutory text and
structure to construe the exceptions as
carve-outs from a broader definition that
sweeps in all cable-related, in-kind
contributions.20
17. While the statutory text is alone
sufficient to support our conclusion, we
also find that the legislative history
supports our position that cable-related,
in-kind contributions are franchise fees
subject to the five percent cap. As we
observed in the Second FNPRM, we see
no basis in the legislative history for
distinguishing between in-kind
contributions unrelated to the provision
of cable services and cable-related, inkind contributions for purposes of the
five percent franchise fee cap.21 Further,
we see no basis in the legislative history
to treat in-kind payments differently
from monetary payments for purposes of
determining what is a franchise fee. The
legislative history, in discussing what
constitutes a franchise fee, refers to the
definition in section 622(g)(1), which
‘‘include[s] any tax, fee, or assessment
imposed on a cable operator or
subscribers solely because of their status
as such,’’ and it makes no distinction
between cable-related contributions and
those unrelated to cable services, nor
between monetary and non-monetary
payments. The legislative history then
20 For example, under section 622(g)(2)(B),
payments required by the franchise to be made by
the cable operator for, or in support of the use of,
PEG access facilities are included in the franchise
fee only for franchises granted after October 30,
1984.
21 According to NCTA, the legislative history
shows that Congress’ intent generally was to limit
the total financial obligations that franchising
authorities may impose on cable operators. We find
that allowing LFAs to circumvent the statutory five
percent cap by not counting cable-related, in-kind
contributions that clearly fall within the statutory
definition of franchise fees would be contrary to
Congress’ intent as reflected in the broad definition
of franchise fee in the statute.
E:\FR\FM\27AUR1.SGM
27AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
elaborates on the specific exemptions in
section 622(g)(2) and, in particular,
notes that ‘‘[s]pecific exemptions from
the franchise fee limitations are
included for certain payments related to
public, educational and governmental
access.’’ It specifies that, ‘‘[f]or existing
franchises, a city may enforce
requirements that additional payments
be made above the 5 percent cap to
defray the cost of providing public,
educational and governmental access,
including requirements related to
channels, facilities and support
necessary for PEG use.’’ Because
Congress limited this exception to thenexisting franchises, this provision
elucidates Congress’ intent that
contributions in support of PEG
access—which are cable-related, in-kind
contributions—are subject to the five
percent cap for franchises granted after
the 1984 Cable Act.22
18. We disagree with commenters
who cite to a portion of the legislative
history as evidence of Congress’ intent
that franchise fees include only
monetary payments made by cable
operators. Specifically, LFA
commenters cite a statement in the
discussion of subsection 622(g)(2)(C),
which excludes certain PEG-related
capital costs from the franchise fee
definition, that ‘‘[i]n general, this
section defines as a franchise fee only
monetary payments made by the cable
operator, and does not include as a ‘fee’
any franchise requirements for the
provision of services, facilities or
equipment.’’ LFA commenters’ reading
of this statement is inconsistent with the
overall text and structure of section
622(g).23 Section 622(g)(1) ‘‘specifically
defines ‘franchise fee’ to include ‘any
tax, fee, or assessment of any kind[,]’ ’’
subject to certain enumerated
exclusions, and the court in
Montgomery County was clear that this
statutory language ‘‘requires us to give
those terms maximum breadth.’’ The
Commission has already concluded, and
the Sixth Circuit has twice upheld, that
22 Although the City of New York opines that the
examples of franchise fees in the legislative history
are all ‘‘services that do not use the cable operator’s
cable system or other communications facilities
(‘CF’) or call on the core competencies (‘CC’) of the
cable operator,’’ this reading overlooks the fact that
certain PEG-related costs are included as franchise
fees, and it creates a distinction that is not apparent
from either the statute or the legislative history.
23 For the same reason, we are not persuaded by
Anne Arundel County et al.’s reliance on a letter
from the Commission’s Cable Services Bureau that
quotes the legislative history. First, this Bureaulevel letter does not bind the Commission. Second,
to the extent that the Bureau’s guidance 20 years
ago conflicts with the conclusions in this
rulemaking, it is reversed and superseded. We note
that the letter merely cites the statute and legislative
history, without analysis.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Aug 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
non-monetary payments can be
franchise fees. Further, this reading
would render section 622(g)(2)(C)
superfluous because there would not
need to be an exemption for PEG-related
in-kind contributions if non-monetary
contributions were not franchise fees in
the first place.
19. Because we believe that the
pertinent statutory provision in section
622(g) supports our conclusion that
cable-related, in-kind contributions are
franchise fees, we reject arguments
raised by franchise authorities that other
Title VI provisions should be read to
exclude costs that are clearly included
by the franchise fee definition. Instead
of focusing on the key definition of
‘‘franchise fee’’ as ‘‘any tax, fee, or
assessment of any kind’’ subject to
certain enumerated exceptions, LFA
commenters cite to other parts of the
statute which, they argue, evince
Congress’ intent to exclude cablerelated, in-kind contributions from the
statutory cap on franchise fees. We
reject each of these arguments in turn
below.
20. First, we affirm our tentative
conclusion that treating cable-related,
in-kind contributions as franchise fees
would not undermine the provisions in
the Act that authorize or require LFAs
to impose cable-related obligations on
franchisees. For example, section 611(b)
of the Act permits 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. Anne Arundel
County et al. argue that the Commission
errs by not acknowledging that the
Cable Act ‘‘authorize[s] LFAs to both
impose cable franchise obligations [in
section 611] and collect franchise fees
[in section 622]—they do not offset each
other.’’ However, as we observed in the
Second FNPRM, the fact that the Act
authorizes LFAs to impose such
obligations does not mean that the value
of these obligations should be excluded
from the five percent cap on franchise
fees. We agree with NCTA and ACA that
there is no basis in the statutory text for
concluding that the authority provided
in section 611(b) affects the definition of
franchise fee in section 622(g). As
explained above, section 622(g) is the
key provision that defines what is
included in the franchise fee, and
section 622(g)(2) carves out only limited
exclusions for PEG-related costs and
makes no mention of an I-Net-related
exclusion. Since Congress enacted the
PEG and I-Net provisions at the same
time it added the franchise fee
provisions, it could have explicitly
excluded all costs related to PEG and INets if it had intended they not count
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
44729
toward the cap.24 Instead, they just
excluded a subset of those costs.
Further, if we were to interpret the
statute such that all costs related to PEG,
I-Nets, or other requirements imposed in
section 611 are excluded from treatment
as franchise fees because section 611(b)
contemplates that such costs be
incurred, the specific exemption for
PEG capital costs in section 622(g)(2)(D)
would be superfluous. While we
acknowledge that PEG channels and INets provide benefits to consumers,
such benefits cannot override the
statutory framework, which carves out
only limited exclusions from franchise
fees.
21. Next, we do not find persuasive
the argument that section 626 of the Act
‘‘reflects the fact that cable-related
franchise requirements are not franchise
fees.’’ Section 626 directs franchising
authorities to consider, among other
things, whether a cable operator’s
franchise renewal proposal ‘‘is
reasonable to meet the future cablerelated community needs and interests,
taking into account the cost of meeting
such needs and interests.’’ NATOA et al.
contend that if cable-related, in-kind
requirements are included as franchise
fees, ‘‘it would be the LFA who pays for
them, rendering the cost consideration
in this Section obsolete.’’ We disagree
with this reasoning. As NCTA explains,
‘‘[t]he cost/benefit analysis required
under this provision underscores that
Congress intended franchising
authorities to balance the desire for any
in-kind exactions requested by parties
in the renewal process against the
overall franchise fee burdens on cable
operators and subscribers.’’ The section
626 assessment does not lose its
purpose if cable-related, in-kind
contributions are counted as franchise
fees; as part of this assessment, for
example, a franchising authority could
determine that cable-related community
24 We disagree with the Cable Act Preservation
Alliance (CAPA) that ‘‘it is equally true that
Congress could have explicitly noted the franchise
fee limitation in 47 U.S.C. Section 531(b) if it had
intended to include these PEG-related costs as
franchise fees.’’ There was no need for Congress to
specify which PEG-related costs are franchise fees
in section 611 when the statute sets forth a
standalone provision, section 622, that defines what
is included in the franchise fee and specifically
addresses PEG-related costs. NATOA et al. argue
that the Commission ‘‘ignores that build-out and
customer service obligations also were enacted by
Congress at the same time it added the franchise fee
provisions and were not explicitly excluded from
the cap, yet . . . finds these are not ‘franchise
fees.’ ’’ However, we explain herein that Congress
expressly stated that cable operators are responsible
for the cost of constructing cable systems. We also
find herein that federally mandated customer
service standards are not a ‘‘tax, fee, or assessment’’
and, thus, there was no need for Congress to
exclude them from the franchise fee.
E:\FR\FM\27AUR1.SGM
27AUR1
44730
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
needs and interests can be met at a
lower cost to cable subscribers than the
full five percent franchise fee.25
Moreover, the community needs
assessment in section 626 also accounts
for items that are not in-kind
contributions subject to the franchise fee
cap, such as build-out requirements.26
22. Finally, we disagree with
commenters that cite a provision in
section 622 that relates to itemization on
customer bills as evidence that Congress
did not intend PEG-related franchise
obligations to be included in franchise
fees. In particular, LFA commenters
point to section 622(c)(1), which
specifies that cable operators may
identify as a separate line item on each
subscriber bill each of the following: (1)
The amount of the total bill assessed as
a franchise fee and the identity of the
franchising authority to which the fee is
paid; (2) the amount of the total bill
assessed to satisfy any requirements
imposed on the cable operator by the
franchise agreement to support PEG
channels or the use of such channels;
and (3) the amount of any other fee, tax,
assessment, or charge of any kind
imposed by any governmental authority
on the transaction between the operator
and the subscriber. LFA commenters
argue that ‘‘[t]hrough this language,
Congress clearly outlined a separation
between franchise fees and cablerelated, in-kind fees.’’ On the contrary,
‘‘the fact that Section 622(c) allows
cable operators to itemize certain
charges on subscriber bills has no
bearing on which charges meet the
definition of franchise fees under
Section 622(g).’’ While section 622(g)
was adopted as part of the 1984 Cable
Act, Congress adopted section 622(c)
years later in 1992 to promote
transparency by allowing cable
operators to inform subscribers about
how much of their total bill is made of
charges imposed by local governments
through the franchising process. By
differentiating the types of charges that
can be itemized on subscriber bills,
there is no indication that Congress
intended to exclude certain charges
from the franchise fee.27
25 As Congress noted when it adopted the five
percent cap, the Commission capped franchise fees
at three percent of a cable operator’s revenue.
26 Build-out requirements are subject to section
626’s directive to assess reasonableness while
taking into account the cost of such requirements,
and a build-out requirement requested by an LFA
could be challenged under section 626.
27 Moreover, as NCTA observes, ‘‘[t]he fallacy that
section 622(c) distinguishes franchise fees from
other exactions, as NATOA and others claim, is
underscored by the fact that subsection (c)(3)
repeats virtually verbatim section 622(g)(1)’s broad
definition of a franchise fee. Yet, by NATOA’s logic,
the itemization of a cost under subsection (c)(3)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Aug 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
23. Having established our
interpretation of section 622(g), we
adopt our tentative conclusion that this
treatment of cable-related, in-kind
contributions should be applied to both
new entrants and incumbent cable
operators. As the Commission has
previously observed, section 622 ‘‘does
not distinguish between incumbent
providers and new entrants.’’ We affirm
our belief that applying the same
treatment of cable-related, in-kind
contributions to both new entrants and
incumbent cable operators will 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.
24. We disagree with the contention
that our interpretation of the franchise
fee definition in section 622(g) is
impermissible under Chevron.28 Charles
County, Maryland posits that ‘‘[b]ecause
Congress has directly addressed the
questions at issue by employing precise,
unambiguous statutory language in
section 622 of the Act, the FCC’s
proposed rules re-imagining . . . what
constitutes a ‘franchise fee’ are
impermissible,’’ as ‘‘[o]nly Congress
may alter or amend federal law.’’
Charles County does not offer an
explanation for why the statutory
language is unambiguous beyond
arguing that the words ‘‘tax, fee, or
assessment’’ in the definition are terms
of art. But regardless of whether these
are terms of art, they can include nonmonetary contributions, as the Sixth
Circuit observed. And we believe that
our interpretation of this language using
traditional tools of statutory
construction is a reasonable and
permissible construction of the statute
that effectuates Congressional intent for
the reasons set forth above.29 Indeed, it
is the interpretation that is most
consistent with the plain meaning of the
statutory definition of franchise fee.
25. In this section, we analyze
whether specific types of cable-related,
in-kind contributions are franchise fees
subject to the five percent statutory cap
under section 622. First, we find that
costs attributable to franchise terms that
require free or discounted cable service
to public buildings are franchise fees,
consistent with our tentative conclusion
would control its treatment for franchise fee
purposes, removing it from the very definition that
Congress established for such fees in section
622(g)(1). . . .’’
28 Review of the FCC’s interpretation of the
statutes it administers is governed by Chevron USA,
Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S.
837 (1984).
29 Where a ‘‘statute is silent or ambiguous’’ with
respect to a specific issue, ‘‘the question’’ for the
court is whether the agency has adopted ‘‘a
permissible construction of the statute.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
that treating all cable-related, in-kind
contributions as franchise fees unless
expressly excluded would best
effectuate the statutory purpose. Next,
we adopt our tentative conclusion that
costs in support of PEG access are
franchise fees, with the exception of
capital costs as defined below.
Similarly, we find that costs attributable
to construction of I-Nets are franchise
fees. Finally, we conclude that build-out
and customer service requirements do
not fall within the statutory definition of
franchise fee. Based on these
conclusions with respect to specific
types of costs, we adopt a definition of
‘‘in-kind, cable-related 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, including but not
limited to free or discounted cable
service to public buildings, costs in
support of PEG access other than capital
costs, and costs attributable to the
construction of I-Nets. It does not
include the costs of complying with
build-out and customer service
requirements.’’ 30
26. We find that costs attributable to
franchise terms that require a cable
operator to provide free or discounted
cable service to public buildings,
including buildings leased by or under
control of the franchise authority, are
cable-related, in-kind contributions that
fall within the five percent cap on
franchise fees. The record includes
examples of cable operators providing
cable service to public buildings as part
of a franchise agreement. Consistent
with our statutory interpretation above,
providing free or discounted cable
service to public buildings is an in-kind
(i.e., non-monetary) contribution
imposed on a cable operator by a
franchise authority, and is not included
in one of the enumerated exceptions
from the franchise fee in section
622(g)(2). Although certain commenters
emphasize that free and discounted
cable services have been considered
franchise considerations that are not
subject to the five percent cap on
franchise fees in past franchise
agreements,31 we find that our reading
30 We modify the definition slightly from what
was proposed in the Second FNPRM to reflect the
conclusions adopted herein.
31 AWC cites a Bureau-level order in which the
Cable Services Bureau found that where the LFA
and cable operator agreed to establish franchise
provisions regarding the eligibility standards for a
senior citizen discount rate and the formula for
adjusting that rate, these terms were not preempted
by federal law. While this decision is about the
inclusion of discounted services in the franchise
terms, it does not address whether discounted
services should be included in the franchise fee
E:\FR\FM\27AUR1.SGM
27AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
that free and discounted services count
towards the franchise fee cap is a
reasonable interpretation and best
effectuates Congressional intent given
that the statute defines franchise fee
broadly, carving out only limited
exclusions. If LFAs could circumvent
the five percent cap by requiring
unlimited free or discounted cable
services for public buildings, in
addition to a five percent franchise fee,
this result would be contrary to
Congress’s intent as reflected in the
broad definition of ‘‘franchise fee’’ in
the statute. We find that the Act does
not provide any basis for treating the
value attributable to free or discounted
services in a different manner than other
in-kind services which must be
included in the franchise fee. Although
we acknowledge that the provision of
free or discounted cable service to
public buildings, such as schools or
libraries, can benefit the public, such
benefits cannot override the statutory
framework. Further, there are policy
rationales for limiting free services,
given that, in a competitive market,
such contributions may raise the costs
of the cable operator’s service, reduce
resources available for other services,
and result in market inefficiency.
27. We conclude in this section that
in-kind contributions related to PEG
access facilities are cable-related, inkind contributions, and are therefore
included within the statutory definition
of ‘‘franchise fees’’ under section
622(g)(1).32 We next conclude that the
term ‘‘capital cost’’ in section
622(g)(2)(C) should be given its ordinary
meaning, which is a cost incurred in
acquiring or improving a capital asset.
Applying that interpretation, we
conclude that the exclusion for capital
costs under section 622(g)(2)(C) could
include equipment that satisfies this
definition, regardless of whether such
equipment is purchased in connection
with the construction of a PEG access
facility. We then conclude that the
record is insufficiently developed for
the Commission to determine whether
the provision of PEG channel capacity is
included within section 622(g)(2)(C)’s
exclusion for capital costs. We also find
that the installation of PEG transport
facilities are capital costs that are
and, thus, is not inconsistent with our findings
herein.
32 PEG channels provide third-party access to
cable systems through channels dedicated for use
by the public, including local governments, schools,
and non-profit and community groups. The Act
provides for the creation and support of PEG
channels in various ways, including by authorizing
LFAs to require franchisees to designate channel
capacity for PEG, and by excluding certain costs
associated with PEG access facilities from the
definition of franchise fees under section 622(g)(2).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Aug 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
exempt from the five percent franchise
fee cap,33 and that maintenance of those
facilities are operating costs that count
toward the cap. Finally, we address
policy arguments regarding the impact
of these conclusions on the provision of
PEG programming.
28. Consistent with our tentative
conclusion in the Second FNPRM, we
find that the definition of franchise fee
in section 622(g)(1) encompasses PEGrelated contributions. Like other taxes,
fees, or assessments imposed by LFAs,
we find that contributions related to
PEG access facilities imposed by an LFA
are subject to the five percent cap on
franchise fees, unless they fall within
one of the five exclusions set forth in
section 622(g)(2). Consistent with the
statutory analysis above, we conclude
that the provision of equipment,
services, and similar contributions for
PEG access facilities are cable-related,
in-kind contributions that meet the
definition of franchise fee.34 Such PEGrelated contributions are not exempt
under section 622(g)(2) of the Act unless
they fall under the limited exceptions
for capital costs and costs incurred by
franchises existing at the time of the
Cable Act’s adoption in 1984. As
explained above, our starting point for
analyzing cable operator contributions
to LFAs is that the Act defines
‘‘franchise fee’’ broadly and has limited,
narrow exceptions. Thus, we believe
that including in the franchise fee cap
any costs that are not specifically
exempt is consistent with the statute
and reasonably effectuates
Congressional intent.
29. Further, including contributions
for PEG access facilities within the
franchise fee definition is consistent
with the overall structure of section 622.
For ‘‘any franchise in effect on October
30, 1984,’’ section 622(g)(2)(B) excludes
from the definition of ‘‘franchise fee’’
‘‘payments which are required by the
franchise to be made by the cable
operator during the term of such
franchise for, or in support of the use of
[PEG] access facilities.’’ There would
33 As explained below, ‘‘PEG transport facilities’’
are facilities that LFAs use to deliver PEG services
from studios or other locations where the
programming is produced to the cable headend.
34 In some cases, LFAs require a grant or other
monetary contribution earmarked for PEG-related
costs. These monetary contributions are likewise
subject to the five percent cap on franchise fees,
unless otherwise excluded under section 622(g)(2).
Section 622 exempts only the items delineated in
(g)(2), and Congress did not distinguish between inkind and monetary contributions, nor did it exempt
monetary contributions earmarked for a purpose
that would otherwise not be excluded under section
622(g)(2). Thus, we make clear that monetary
contributions—like in-kind contributions—must be
counted toward the franchise fee cap unless
expressly exempt under section 622(g)(2).
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
44731
have been no reason for Congress to
grandfather in these PEG-related
contributions for existing franchises if
such payments were not otherwise
included within the definition of
‘‘franchise fees.’’ In effect, excluding
PEG-related contributions would read
‘‘in the case of any franchise in effect on
October 30, 1984’’ out of section
622(g)(2)(B), extending this
grandfathered exclusion to all
franchises.
30. Some commenters claim that other
sections of Title VI, including the
section authorizing LFAs to require the
designation of PEG channel capacity in
section 611, override section 622’s
definition of ‘‘franchise fee.’’ As
discussed above, we find these
arguments unpersuasive. We also reject
arguments that provisions of the Act
unrelated to cable franchising
demonstrate that PEG-related fees are
not franchise fees. For example, section
623 of the Act, which governs the
regulation of cable rates, instructs the
Commission to take the following two
factors (among others) into account
when prescribing rate regulations:
1. The reasonably and properly allocable
portion of any amount assessed as a franchise
fee, tax, or charge of any kind imposed by
any State or local authority on the
transactions between cable operators and
cable subscribers or any other fee, tax, or
assessment of general applicability imposed
by a governmental entity applied against
cable operators or cable subscribers; and
2. Any amount required to satisfy franchise
requirements to support public, educational,
or governmental channels or the use of such
channels or any other services required
under the franchise.
Commenters argue that the separate
listing of franchise fees (in 1) and the
costs of PEG franchise requirements (in
2) is evidence that franchise fees do not
include PEG-related costs. We disagree.
We note that that the question of which
factors the Commission should consider
in setting rate regulations is both legally
and analytically distinct from the
question of which costs are included as
a franchise fee under section 622. Even
if it were not, the separate listing of
franchise fees and PEG-related exactions
in section 623 does not indicate that
Congress understood these categories to
be mutually exclusive. In general,
section 623(b) directs the Commission
to consider several factors relating to
cable operators’ costs, revenue, and
profits to ensure that the Commission
sets ‘‘reasonable’’ rates. Ensuring that a
rate is ‘‘reasonable’’ requires a full
consideration of the costs borne by cable
operators. Listing only franchise fees
would fail to account for some of these
costs, even under the interpretation
E:\FR\FM\27AUR1.SGM
27AUR1
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
44732
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
adopted in this Order: Franchise fees
and PEG costs only partially overlap,
given that section 622(g)(2) excludes
certain PEG-related exactions from the
definition of franchise fees. We
therefore find nothing inconsistent
about the separate listing of franchise
fees and PEG-related costs in section
623 and the interpretation of section
622(g) adopted in this Order. The same
analysis applies to the bill-itemization
requirements in section 622(c), which
permits the separate itemization of
franchise fees and PEG-related
assessments in subscriber bills.35
31. Consistent with our tentative
conclusions in the Second FNPRM, we
conclude (1) that PEG support payments
for any franchise in effect on October
30, 1984 and (2) PEG capital costs for
any franchise granted after October 30,
1984 are exempt from the definition of
franchise fee. As discussed above, two
provisions of section 622(g)(2) exclude
certain costs associated with PEG access
facilities from the definition of
‘‘franchise fee’’ in section 622(g)(1):
First, section 622(g)(2)(B) excludes 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 affirm that under
section 622(g)(2)(B), PEG support
payments made pursuant to such
franchises are excluded from the five
percent franchise fee cap. Consistent
with the statutory language and
legislative history, we find this
exclusion is broad in scope, and
commenters did not dispute this
interpretation in the record.36
32. Second, for any franchise granted
after 1984, section 622(g)(2)(C) contains
a narrower exclusion covering only PEG
‘‘capital costs which are required by the
franchise to be incurred by the cable
operator for [PEG] access facilities.’’ The
Cable Act does not define ‘‘capital
costs’’. We address the scope of this
exclusion below by first clarifying the
definition of ‘‘capital costs’’ and
concluding that it can apply to
contributions for both constructionrelated and non-construction-related
contributions to PEG access facilities.
We then determine that the record is
insufficient to determine whether costs
associated with providing PEG channel
capacity are subject to this exclusion,
and we discuss the application of the
exclusion to PEG transport.
33. Definition of ‘‘capital costs.’’
Although the Commission previously
35 Several
commenters raised section 622(c) as
evidence that franchise fees do not include PEGrelated assessments. We note that section 622(c)
was adopted years after section 622(g) was enacted.
36 The legislative history further supports this
interpretation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Aug 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
asserted with respect to section
622(g)(2)(C) that ‘‘[c]apital costs refer to
those costs incurred in or associated
with the construction of PEG access
facilities,’’ we now revisit that
interpretation and provide additional
clarity on the definition of this term. As
described below, we find that the term
‘‘capital costs’’ is not limited to
construction-related costs; rather, it
generally encompasses costs incurred in
acquiring or improving capital assets for
PEG access facilities. The Commission’s
previous reading of the phrase ‘‘capital
costs’’ was based in part on section
622(g)’s legislative history, which states
that the Cable Act excludes from the
franchise fee cap ‘‘the capital costs
associated with the construction of
[PEG] access facilities.’’ The Sixth
Circuit affirmed the Commission’s prior
reading in Alliance, where, rejecting a
challenge to the Commission’s
construction of the term ‘‘capital costs’’
in the First Report and Order, the court
held that:
[t]o determine the permissibility of the
Commission’s construction of Section
622(g)(2)(C), we start by consulting the
legislative history. During the enactment of
this provision, Congress made clear that it
intended section 622(g)(2)(C) to reach
‘‘capital costs associated with the
construction of [PEG] access facilities.’’
H.R.Rep. No. 98–934, at 26 (emphasis added).
Against this legislative pronouncement, the
FCC’s limitation of ‘‘capital costs’’ to those
‘‘incurred in or associated with the
construction of PEG access facilities’’
represents an eminently reasonable
construction of section 622(g)(2)(C).
34. We asked for additional comment
on the definition of ‘‘capital costs’’
under section 622(g)(2)(C) in the Second
FNPRM.37 Arguably, the Commission’s
previous construction left unsettled the
extent to which the ‘‘capital costs’’
exclusion encompassed PEG
equipment—such as vans, studios, or
cameras. In Alliance, the Sixth Circuit
observed that the Commission’s
definition of capital costs could
encompass the costs of such equipment,
but only insofar as the equipment costs
were ‘‘relate[d] to the construction of
PEG facilities.’’ But neither the First
Report and Order nor the legislative
history from which it borrowed
expressly limited capital costs to
construction-related capital costs. Both
statements are silent—or, at most,
37 The Second FNPRM noted that ‘‘capital costs
which are required by the franchise to be incurred
by the cable operator for [PEG] access facilities’’ are
excluded from the definition of franchise fee, and
sought comment on treating the costs of studio
equipment as capital costs for the purpose of this
exemption from the franchise fee cap.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
unclear—about the treatment of nonconstruction-related capital costs.
35. Based on the arguments in the
record and our further consideration of
the statutory text and legislative history
we now conclude that the Commission’s
earlier statement regarding the
definition of ‘‘capital costs’’ was overly
narrow. As commenters note, many
local governments receive payments
from cable operators that are not simply
for the construction of PEG studios, but
also for, among other things, the
acquisition of equipment needed to
produce PEG access programming. LFAs
argue for a broader definition of ‘‘capital
costs’’ that would include PEG channel
capacity and certain equipment costs
associated with PEG access facilities.38
By contrast, cable companies have urged
the Commission to reaffirm, based on its
previous statement, that ‘‘capital costs’’
are limited to costs associated with the
construction of PEG access facilities
(and thus do not include channel
capacity and equipment such as
cameras, or other equipment necessary
to run a PEG access facility).
36. In general, when a term is
undefined in a statute, courts look to
that term’s ‘‘ordinary meaning.’’ While
there is no general definition of the
precise term ‘‘capital costs,’’ Black’s
Law Dictionary defines a similar term,39
‘‘capital expenditure,’’ as ‘‘[a]n outlay of
funds to acquire or improve a fixed
asset,’’ and defines a ‘‘fixed asset,’’ or
‘‘capital asset’’ as ‘‘[a] long-term asset
used in the operation of a business or
used to produce goods or services, such
as equipment, land, or an industrial
plant.’’ Merriam-Webster similarly
defines ‘‘capital expenditure’’ as ‘‘costs
that are incurred in the acquisition or
improvement of property (as capital
38 Similarly, several commenters argue that
section 611’s grant of authority to require PEG
channels suggests that the cost of such channels
cannot count toward the five percent franchise fee
cap. We disagree with the notion that the Act’s
grant of authority to require designation for PEG use
necessarily excludes the costs of PEG from the
definition of franchise fees. As we note above, the
fact that the Act authorizes LFAs to impose such
obligations does not mean that the value of these
obligations should be excluded from the five
percent cap on franchise fees. Section 622 governs
‘‘Franchise Fees’’ and makes clear that any items
not expressly excluded from that section’s broad
definition of franchise fees are included against the
statutory cap. Section 622 excludes some—but not
all—PEG-related costs.
39 Costs and expenditures are related, but not
identical, concepts. Black’s Law Dictionary defines
‘‘cost’’ as ‘‘the amount paid or charged for
something; price or expenditure.’’ Black’s relevantly
defines ‘‘expenditure’’ as ‘‘a sum paid out.’’ While
we recognize that ‘‘cost’’ and ‘‘expenditure’’ have
distinct meanings in the accounting context, for the
purposes of our interpretation of section
622(g)(2)(C), we find that the meanings of these
terms are highly analogous—i.e., both pertain to
expending resources to acquire a capital asset.
E:\FR\FM\27AUR1.SGM
27AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
assets) or that are otherwise chargeable
to a capital account,’’ and defines
‘‘capital assets’’ as ‘‘long-term assets
either tangible or intangible (as land,
buildings, patents, or franchises).’’ An
accounting textbook provides yet
another similar definition:
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Expenditures for the purchase or expansion
of plant assets are called capital expenditures
and are recorded in asset accounts. . . . In
brief, any material expenditure that will
benefit several accounting periods is
considered a capital expenditure. Any
expenditure that will benefit only the current
period or that is not material in amount is
treated as a revenue expenditure.
We also note that capital costs are
distinct from operating costs (or
operating expenses), which are
generally defined as expenses ‘‘incurred
in running a business and producing
output.’’ Reflecting this distinction, the
Commission has distinguished between
costs incurred in building of PEG
facilities, which are capital costs, and
costs incurred in using those facilities,
which are not.
37. While we may also look to
legislative history or other context in
ascertaining a statute’s meaning, none of
these sources here compels a narrower
definition than that set forth above. The
legislative history is ambiguous: The
passage relied on by the Commission in
the First Report and Order, from a
summary in the House Report, notes
that ‘‘capital costs associated with the
construction of [PEG] access facilities
are excluded from the definition of a
franchise fee.’’ But section 622(g)(2)(C)
does not itself restrict capital costs to
costs that are construction related, nor
does this passage in the legislative
history expressly say that the capital
costs exclusion is limited to such costs.
And, as some commenters recognize,
not all capital costs related to PEG
access facilities are related to
construction: Studio equipment, vans,
and cameras, often have useful lives of
several years, and the costs of acquiring
such equipment are often capitalized.
Such costs therefore often fall within
the ordinary meaning of capital costs.
Had Congress wished to exclude such
costs, it could have done so by
narrowing the definition of ‘‘capital
costs’’ in the statute.
38. Consistent with our analysis
above, we find that the phrase ‘‘capital
costs’’ in section 622(g)(2)(C) should be
interpreted in a manner consistent with
its ordinary meaning. Based on the
definitions discussed above, the term
‘‘capital cost’’ generally would be
understood to mean a cost incurred in
acquiring or improving a capital asset.
Because the ordinary meaning of this
term is not limited to construction-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Aug 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
related costs, we now find that the
definition of ‘‘capital costs’’ as used in
section 622(g)(2)(C) is not limited to
costs ‘‘incurred in or associated with the
construction of PEG access facilities.’’
We conclude that while capital costs
include costs associated with the
construction of PEG access facilities,
they are not limited to such costs.40
39. The ordinary meaning of ‘‘capital
costs’’ could encompass the acquisition
of a non-construction-related capital
asset—such as a van or a camera.
Section 622(g)(2)(C) only excludes
certain capital costs—those ‘‘which are
required by the franchise to be incurred
by the cable operator for [PEG] access
facilities.’’ Section 602(16) defines PEG
access facilities as ‘‘channel capacity
. . . and facilities and equipment for the
use of such channel capacity.’’ In the
legislative history, Congress explains
that ‘‘[t]his may include vans, studios,
cameras, or other equipment relating to
the use of public, educational, or
governmental channel capacity.’’ Based
on this statutory language and
legislative history as well as the current
record, we believe at the present time
that the definition of ‘‘capital costs’’ in
section 622(g)(2)(C) includes equipment
purchased in connection with PEG
access facilities, even if it is not
purchased in conjunction with the
construction of such facilities.41 But, as
both sections 622(g)(2)(c) and 602(16)
make clear, the capital costs of such
equipment may be excluded only
insofar as they are for the use of PEG
channel capacity.
40. This interpretation seems most
faithful to the text of section
622(g)(2)(C), which does not restrict
capital costs to those that are related to
construction. We recognize that this
interpretation reflects a broader sense of
capital costs than described in the First
Report and Order. To the extent that our
interpretation in this document is
inconsistent with the Commission’s
earlier statements about the capital cost
exclusion, we find that the
interpretation in this Order better
comports with the Act’s language,
structure, and policy objectives.42
40 We agree with NATOA that franchising
authorities should be given an opportunity to show
that franchise fees are being spent on PEG capital
costs if a cable operator requests an offset against
franchise fees for non-monetary, cable-related
franchise provisions.
41 We note that this view was affirmed by the
Sixth Circuit in Alliance.
42 NCTA requests that we ‘‘make clear that cable
operators have the right to audit a franchising
authority’s use of the contributions and that a
franchising authority must provide reasonable
supporting documentation during an audit that
such funds are, or were, being used for PEG capital
expenses.’’ We decline to do so. We find nothing
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
44733
41. We disagree with NCTA’s
assertion that there would have been
‘‘no good reason’’ to grandfather PEG
equipment—such as vans and
cameras—if such equipment were
‘‘subject to the permanent exception
from franchise fees under section
622(g)(2)(C).’’ The statute itself fully
excludes PEG obligations for franchises
in effect on October 30, 1984, but
excludes only PEG-related capital costs
for franchises granted after that date.
The broader exclusion for existing
franchises in section 622(g)(2)(B)
reflects the legislative intent to
grandfather the provisions of existing
PEG franchises. Section 622(g)(2)(C)
provides a narrower exclusion for new
franchises than the broad exclusion
enjoyed by grandfathered existing
franchises; one would therefore expect
these two exclusions to overlap, but not
be coextensive. Even under our
interpretation of section 622(g)(2)(C),
section 622(g)(2)(B) remains a much
broader exclusion than section
622(g)(2)(C): A number of costs—most
notably, operating expenses—would
still be excluded by section 622(g)(2)(B),
but not by section 622(g)(2)(C).43
42. PEG channel capacity. While we
find that the costs associated with the
provision of PEG channel capacity are
cable-related, in-kind costs that fall
within the definition of ‘‘franchise fee,’’
we find that the record is insufficiently
developed to determine whether such
costs should be excluded from the
franchise fee as a capital cost under the
exemption in section 622(g)(2)(C). The
Second FNPRM stated that, while the
Act authorizes LFAs to require that
channel capacity be designated for PEG
use, this authorization does not
necessarily remove the costs of such
obligations from the five percent cap on
franchise fees. In the record in this
proceeding, cable operators generally
agreed with this statement, and LFAs
generally disagreed. As discussed above,
the Act’s authorization of a franchise
obligation (e.g., one related to PEG
access facilities or I-Nets) does not
remove that obligation from the five
percent cap on franchise fees. It follows,
then, that the costs associated with
providing PEG channel capacity fall
within this cap as a cable-related, inkind contribution unless they are
in the Act that precludes a cable operator from
auditing an LFA’s use of PEG capital funds, nor do
we find anything that gives a cable operator an
audit right. We note that under section 635(b) of the
Act, a court may award a cable operator the right
to audit if the court finds that relief appropriate.
43 Salaries and training are two examples of
operating costs excluded by section 622(g)(2)(B),
but not by section 622(g)(2)(C).
E:\FR\FM\27AUR1.SGM
27AUR1
44734
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
otherwise excluded under section
622(g)(2).44
43. LFAs claim that the costs of
providing PEG channel capacity do fall
within section 622(g)(2)(C)’s exclusion
for PEG-related capital costs. In support,
they point out that the Act defines
‘‘[PEG] access facilities’’ as ‘‘(A) channel
capacity designated for public,
educational, or governmental use; and
(B) facilities and equipment for the use
of such channel capacity.’’ Thus, they
assert, because section 622(g)(2)(C)
expressly applies to costs incurred by a
cable operator for ‘‘[PEG] access
facilities,’’ it necessarily applies to costs
associated with PEG channel capacity.
But, as the cable operators state, the
Act’s inclusion of channel capacity in
the definition of ‘‘[PEG] access
facilities’’ does not settle the question of
whether channel capacity costs fall
under section 622(g)(2)(C). This is
because section 622(g)(2)(C) excludes
only a particular subset of PEG access
facility costs—capital costs—from the
definition of franchise fees subject to the
five percent cap, and cable operators
claim that PEG channel capacity is not
a capital cost. Moreover, even assuming
that PEG channel capacity is not a
capital cost and is therefore subject to
44 One commenter notes that California law
requires ‘‘all video service providers’’—a category
broader than just cable providers—to ‘‘designate a
sufficient amount of capacity’’ for the provision of
PEG channels. Because this requirement applies to
more than just cable operators, commenters argue,
it is a fee of ‘‘general applicability’’ excluded under
section 622(g)(2)(A) from the definition of franchise
fee. The Eastern District of California recently held
that a CPUC fee under the same California law was
a fee of general applicability on these grounds. The
Ninth Circuit recently vacated and remanded this
ruling on other grounds. An assessment aimed only
at cable or cable-like services would not fall within
section 622(g)(2)(A)’s exclusion as a ‘‘tax, fee, or
assessment of general applicability.’’ The text of
section 622(g)(2)(A) of the Cable Act identifies a
‘‘tax, fee, or assessment imposed on both utilities
and cable operators or their services’’ as a
paradigmatic example of an assessment of ‘‘general
applicability.’’ The legislative history further
explains that an assessment of ‘‘general
applicability’’ ‘‘could include such payments as a
general sales tax, an entertainment tax imposed on
other entertainment business as well as the cable
operator, and utility taxes or utility user taxes
which, while they may differentiate the rates
charged to different types of utilities, do not unduly
discriminate against the cable operator as to
effectively constitute a tax directed at the cable
system.’’ Here, the provision of PEG capacity
appears to be an obligation specific to cable
operators—the California law itself references the
provision of PEG capacity by ‘‘cable operator[s].’’
We also note that the PEG authority provided in
section 611 only applies to cable service, and that
there are no PEG requirements under federal law for
other video providers, like Direct Broadcast Service
(DBS) or over-the-top streaming services. In any
case, we need not settle the question whether a
specific state law is of general applicability to
determine whether the provision of PEG capacity,
in general, falls within the definition of ‘‘franchise
fee.’’ Accordingly, we decline to do so here.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Aug 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
the five percent cap, the record reveals
serious difficulties regarding how to
calculate the value of PEG channel
capacity to account for this cost.45
44. Given this, we find that the
questions raised by channel capacity are
complex, and that the record is not
developed enough to allow us to answer
them. We therefore defer this issue for
further consideration.46 In the
meantime, we find that the status quo
should be maintained, and that channel
capacity costs should not be offset
against the franchise fee cap. This
approach will minimize disruption and
provide predictability to both local
franchise authorities and cable
operators.
45. Limits on LFA Authority To
Establish PEG Requirements. While we
do not reach a conclusion with respect
to the treatment of PEG channel
capacity, we reiterate here that sections
611(a) and 621(a)(4)(B) of the Act
restrict the authority of LFAs to
establish PEG channel capacity
requirements. We discussed the limits
imposed by section 611(a) in the First
Report and Order. We noted that, while
section 611(b) does not place a limit on
the amount of channel capacity that a
franchising authority may require,
section 621(a)(4)(b) provides that a
franchising authority may require
‘‘adequate assurance’’ that the cable
operator will provide ‘‘adequate’’ PEG
access channel capacity, facilities, or
financial support. We determined that
‘‘adequate,’’ as used in the statute,
should be given its ordinary meaning—
‘‘satisfactory or sufficient.’’
46. In the Second FNPRM, the
Commission again discussed the limits
on franchising authority requirements
for PEG channels under section 611(b),
identifying PEG channel capacity as an
in-kind contribution and seeking
comment on the effects on cable
operators and cable subscribers of
‘‘allowing LFAs to seek unlimited’’ PEG
operating support and other cablerelated, in-kind contributions. In
response, commenters submitted
examples of what they claim are LFA
requirements for excessive numbers of
PEG channels. LFAs responded with
comments defending such requirements,
as well as requirements for associated
PEG support.
45 NCTA proposes valuing channel capacity at
market cost; anything less, NCTA argues, would be
an additional subsidy beyond the cost of the service
itself. LFAs raise a host of problems with using the
fair market value approach to value channel
capacity.
46 We encourage parties to supplement the record
on the channel capacity issue. To the extent that we
are provided sufficient information to answer the
complex questions raised by channel capacity, we
intend to resolve them in the next twelve months.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
47. We note that many states have
attempted to strike a balance between
the costs of PEG channels to cable
operators and the benefits of PEG
channels to the public by imposing
reasonable limits on PEG channel
capacity. For example, some states have
limited the number of PEG channels—
typically to two or three. Others have
required that PEG channels be returned
if they are not substantially used. States
have also tied the number of appropriate
PEG channels to the size of the
population served.
48. We decline the invitation by cable
operators to establish fixed rules as to
what constitutes ‘‘adequate’’ PEG
channel capacity under section
621(a)(4)(B).47 We recognize that the
number of channels necessary to further
the goals of the Cable Act might vary
depending on, among other things, the
number of subscribers within a
franchise, the area covered by a
franchise, the number of cable operators
within a franchise, the area’s population
and geography, the cable-related
community needs and interests, and
whether PEG channel capacity is
substantially used. In general, each of
these factors is relevant in determining
whether an LFA has exceeded its
authority under section 621(a)(4)(B) by
demanding more than ‘‘adequate’’
capacity.48 We note that LFA demands
for PEG capacity requirements that are
more than ‘‘adequate’’ are subject to
judicial challenge under section 635 of
the Act, as well as other forms of relief.
We also reserve the right to establish
fixed rules in the future should there be
widespread evidence of LFAs requiring
more than adequate PEG channel
capacity.
49. PEG transport. We find that the
installation of transport facilities
dedicated for long-term use by a PEG
provider for the transmittal of recurring
programming to a cable headend or
other point in the cable system—PEG
transport—does not count toward the
47 As noted, the Commission concluded that
‘‘adequate’’ should be given its plain meaning,
‘‘satisfactory or sufficient’’ in the First Report and
Order. The Sixth Circuit affirmed this
interpretation.
48 LFAs argue that relying on the section 621
‘‘adequate’’ standard conflicts with the standards
established by section 626 in the context of
franchise renewals, which generally ask whether a
renewal proposal is reasonable to meet the ‘‘needs
and interests’’ of the community. We see no such
conflict. Section 621 establishes ‘‘General Franchise
Requirements,’’ and nothing in section 626 suggests
that these general limits do not apply in the context
of a franchise renewal. As NCTA points out, to find
that franchise renewals are constrained only by
section 626’s ‘‘needs and interests’’ inquiry would
mean, among other things, that franchise renewals
would be unconstrained by the statutory cap on
franchise fees in section 622.
E:\FR\FM\27AUR1.SGM
27AUR1
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
five percent franchise fee cap. For the
reasons explained above, we find that
exempting capital costs from the five
percent cap is consistent with the Act.
The expenditure for the installation of a
system that carries PEG programming
from a PEG studio to a cable operator’s
headend facility is a capital expenditure
because it is a long-term asset meant to
deliver the programming. The ongoing
costs associated with the maintenance
or operation of that facility would not
qualify as a capital expenditure,
however, as these are operating costs
that are necessary to run the business
and produce output. NCTA requests that
we declare PEG transport costs beyond
‘‘a single PEG transport return line [that]
is dedicated to connecting the PEG
studio to the cable network or headend’’
to count toward the five percent cap.
Although we agree that the costs
associated with the use of transport
lines for ‘‘episodic’’ or ‘‘short-term’’ PEG
programming is an operating cost that is
subject to the franchise fee cap, we
decline to establish a fixed quantity of
PEG transport return lines that is
‘‘adequate’’ under section 621(a)(4)(B).49
Like the number of PEG channels on a
system, the number of adequate return
lines in a franchise area might vary
according to particular circumstances
like the number of subscribers in the
franchise area, the area covered by the
franchise and the number of cable
operators in the franchise. The number
also might vary depending on the
number of PEG channels provided in a
franchise area and the types of
programming offered over them.
Nevertheless, any LFA requests for
multiple transport connections
dedicated for long-term PEG use that the
cable operator considers to be more than
‘‘adequate’’ are subject to judicial
challenge under section 635 of the Act.
50. We acknowledge the benefits of
PEG programming and find that our
interpretations adopted above are
faithful to the policy objectives of the
Cable Act. A significant number of
comments in the record stressed these
benefits, which include providing
access to the legislative process of the
local governments, reporting on local
issues, providing a forum for local
candidates for office, and providing a
platform for local communities—
including minority communities. Of
course, Congress itself similarly
recognized the importance of PEG
programming by authorizing LFAs to
49 We note, however, that NCTA cites a
particularly egregious example of a ‘‘transport line
[that] is used once a year for a Halloween parade’’
that seems well beyond what constitutes adequate
facilities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Aug 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
44735
require the provision of PEG channel
capacity in the Cable Act, and by
carving out certain costs of such
programming from the five percent cap
on franchise fees. Nothing in this
proceeding disturbs the Commission’s
longstanding view that PEG
programming serves an important role
in local communities.
51. At the same time, the Cable Act
seeks to encourage deployment and
competition by limiting the franchise
fees that LFAs may collect. These
include limitations on imposing costs
associated with the provision of PEG
programming. A number of cable
operators express concern with
excessive LFA requirements for PEG
channel capacity, support, and in-kind
contributions. Altice, for example, notes
that ‘‘PEG operational contributions
. . . are common and routinely treated
as separate from the 5 percent franchise
fee.’’ Commenters likewise suggest that
these excessive PEG-related demands
can hinder competition and
deployment.
52. The Cable Act itself, as interpreted
in this Order, balances these costs and
benefits. By excluding PEG-related
capital costs from the five percent cap
on franchise fees, but leaving other PEGrelated exactions subject to that cap, the
Cable Act divides the financial burden
of supporting PEG programming
between LFAs and cable operators. By
counting a portion of these costs against
the statutory cap on franchise fees that
LFAs may collect, the Cable Act allows
LFAs to seek support for PEG
programming from cable operators,
while guarding against the possibility
that LFAs will make demands for such
programming without regard to cost.
53. Some commenters have suggested
that the proposals in the Second
FNPRM threaten to eliminate or
drastically reduce PEG programming.50
We disagree. Significantly, any adverse
impact of our ruling on PEG
programming should be mitigated by (1)
the expansion of the ‘‘capital cost’’
exclusion beyond merely capital costs
associated with construction; and (2)
our decision to defer ruling on whether
the costs of channel capacity may be
counted under this exclusion.51 Under
the interpretation adopted in this Order,
cable operators will continue to provide
support where an LFA chooses, but
some aspects of that support will now
be properly counted against the
statutory five percent franchise fee cap,
as Congress intended.52 We recognize
that this represents a departure from the
longstanding treatment of PEG costs by
LFAs and cable operators. We do not,
however, believe that these conclusions
will eliminate PEG programming. Nor
do we believe that the existing practice
was lawful merely because it was
longstanding: the Commission’s duty is
to conform its rules to law, not tradition.
54. To the extent that existing
practices are inconsistent with the law,
LFAs will still have a choice: they can
continue to receive monetary franchise
payments up to the five percent cap,
they can continue to receive their
existing PEG support and reduce the
monetary payments they receive, or they
can negotiate for a reduction of both that
fits within the bounds of the law that
Congress adopted.
55. We find that the costs associated
with the construction, maintenance, and
service of an I-Net fall within the five
percent cap on franchise fees. Such
costs are cable-related, in-kind
contributions that meet the definition of
franchise fee. In particular, agreeing to
construct, maintain, and provide I-Net
service pursuant to the terms of a
franchise agreement is necessarily cablerelated, is an in-kind (i.e., nonmonetary) contribution imposed on a
cable operator by a franchise authority,
and is not included in one of the
enumerated exceptions from the
franchise fee in section 622(g)(2) of the
Act. Thus, we believe that including
such services in the franchise fee is
consistent with the statute. As we
tentatively concluded in the Second
FNPRM, treating cable-related, in-kind
contributions, such as I-Net
requirements, as franchise fees would
not undermine provisions in the Act
that authorize or require LFAs to impose
cable-related obligations on franchisees.
We disagree with LFA commenters who
argue that the cost of I-Nets should be
excluded from the franchise fee.
Although such commenters contend
that ‘‘[t]he Commission’s proposal to
50 This concern was also expressed in a number
of letters from members of Congress.
51 NATOA et al. say that these aspects of our
decision will not have a mitigating impact on the
availability of PEG programming. They suggest that
this Order ‘‘is not a boon to LFAs’’ because it was
already clear that both construction-related and
non-construction-related PEG equipment costs are
exempt from the franchise fee cap. This is incorrect.
As we explain above, the scope of the PEG capital
cost exemption previously was left unsettled. This
Order clarifies that issue by finding that equipment
costs unrelated to construction may be considered
capital costs for purposes of section 622(g)(2)(C).
52 Finally, a number of commenters argue that
PEG requirements confer a benefit on the
community, like buildout requirements, and
therefore should similarly not be considered a
‘‘contribution’’ to LFAs. We find that PEG
requirements are distinguishable from buildout
requirements for the reasons discussed below. PEG
requirements, unlike buildout requirements, are
also specifically discussed in the definition of
franchise fee.
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27AUR1.SGM
27AUR1
44736
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
require LFAs to pay for I-Nets . . .
cannot be squared with the statute,’’ it
is entirely consistent with the statute to
find that franchising authorities may
impose cable-related requirements, such
as requiring dedicated channel capacity
on I-Nets, on cable operators, but also to
find that funding for these franchise
requirements applies against the five
percent cap. Similar to our conclusion
with respect to PEG support, while we
acknowledge that I-Nets provide
benefits to communities,53 such benefits
cannot override the statutory
framework, which carves out only
limited exclusions from franchise fees.
56. Further, as we conclude above, we
disagree with commenters that section
611(b) of the Act, which authorizes
LFAs to require that channel capacity
on I-Nets be designated for educational
and governmental use, should be
interpreted to exempt the costs of I-Nets
from franchise fees. There is no basis in
the statutory text for concluding that
section 611(b) imposes any limit on the
definition of franchise fee. Moreover,
section 622(g) defines what is included
in the franchise fee, and section
622(g)(2) carves out only limited
exclusions for PEG-related costs and
does not exclude I-Net-related costs. As
we observe above, since Congress
enacted the PEG and I-Net provisions at
the same time it added the franchise fee
provisions, it could have explicitly
excluded all costs related to I-Nets if it
had intended they not count toward the
cap.54
57. We conclude that franchise terms
that require cable operators to build
their systems to cover certain localities
in a franchise area do not count toward
53 Anne Arundel County et al. contend that the
obligation to provide I-Nets ‘‘benefits not only the
public, but also the cable operator, who is in a
position to sell commercial services via I-Nets,’’ and
they argue that the Commission ‘‘offers no
explanation as to how such a mutually beneficial
arrangement constitutes a tax.’’ However, it is
unclear from the record to what extent, if any, cable
operators benefit from providing I-Nets.
54 Anne Arundel County et al. suggests that our
interpretation of the statute as it relates to I-Nets is
somehow inconsistent with the Commission’s
holding in a 1996 open video systems order.
Contrary to Anne Arundel County et al.’s assertion,
the Commission did not conclude in the OVS Order
that I-Nets were meant to be excluded from the
franchise fee. Rather, that order affirmed the
Commission’s decision to preclude local
franchising authorities from requiring open video
system operators to build I-Nets, while also
clarifying that this decision is not inconsistent with
permitting the local franchising authority to require
channel capacity on a network if an open video
system operator does build one. As we explain
above, it is entirely consistent with the statute to
find that franchising authorities may impose cablerelated requirements, such as requiring dedicated
channel capacity on I-Nets, but also to find that
funding for these requirements applies against the
five percent cap.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Aug 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
the five percent cap.55 As we explain
herein, Title VI establishes a framework
that reflects a fundamental bargain
between the cable authority and
franchising authority—a cable operator
may apply for and obtain a franchise to
construct and operate facilities in the
local rights-of-way and, in exchange, an
LFA may impose fees and other
requirements as set forth in the Act. The
statutory framework makes clear that
the authority to construct a cable system
is granted to the cable operator as part
of this bargain and that the costs of such
construction are to be borne by the cable
operator. Specifically, section
621(a)(2)(B) of the Act provides that
‘‘[a]ny franchise shall be construed to
authorize the construction of a cable
system over public rights-of-way, and
through easements, . . . except that in
using such easements the cable operator
shall ensure . . . that the cost of the
installation, construction, operation, or
removal of such facilities be borne by
the cable operator or subscriber, or a
combination of both.’’ Because the
statute is clear that cable operators, not
LFAs, are responsible for the cost of
building out cable systems, it would be
inconsistent with the statutory text and
structure to count these costs as part of
the franchise fee.56 Both cable industry
and LFA commenters generally support
the contention that build-out obligations
should not count toward the five
percent franchise fee cap.57
58. We also conclude that franchise
terms that require cable operators to
comply with customer service standards
do not count toward the five percent
cap.58 LFA commenters explain that
cable operators are required to comply
with customer service standards under
federal or state law, and that cable
franchises may include an obligation to
55 Build-out requirements are requirements that a
franchisee expand cable service to parts or all of the
franchise area within a specified period of time.
56 Because the statute is clear with regard to cable
operator responsibility for construction costs, we
reject ACA’s argument that ‘‘build-out obligations
should only be excluded [from the franchise fee] to
the extent an LFA needs to meet its obligation
under paragraph 621(a)(3)’’ 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.
57 While some LFA commenters disagree with
distinguishing between build-out obligations and
other cable-related contributions such as PEG and
I-Net support based on which entities receive the
benefit of such obligations or whether such
obligations can be considered ‘‘essential’’ to the
provision of cable services, because we have
clarified the rationale for excluding build-out
obligations, we do not need to address these
arguments.
58 In the Second FNPRM, we sought comment on
whether there are other requirements besides buildout requirements that should not be considered
contributions to an LFA.
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
comply with customer service
standards. Notably, section 632 of the
Act directs the Commission to
‘‘establish standards by which cable
operators may fulfill their customer
service requirements,’’ including ‘‘at a
minimum, requirements governing—(1)
cable system office hours and telephone
availability; (2) installations, outages,
and service calls; and (3)
communications between the cable
operator and the subscriber (including
standards governing bills and refunds.’’
The Commission implemented this
mandate in § 76.309 of its rules, which
sets forth with specificity the customer
service standards to which cable
operators are required to adhere relating
to cable system office hours and
telephone availability, installations,
outages and service calls, and
communications between cable
operators and cable subscribers. We find
that franchise terms that require cable
operators to adhere to customer service
standards are not part of the franchise
fee. In contrast to in-kind, cable-related
contributions that are franchise fees
subject to the statutory cap, such as the
provision of free cable service to
government buildings or PEG and I-Net
support,59 customer service obligations
are not a ‘‘tax, fee, or assessment’’
imposed on a cable operator; they are
regulatory standards that govern how
cable operators are available to and
communicate with customers. Indeed,
as the legislative history explains, ‘‘[i]n
general, customer service means the
direct business relation between a cable
operator and a subscriber,’’ and
‘‘customer service requirements include
requirements related to interruption of
service; disconnection; rebates and
credits to consumers; deadlines to
respond to consumer requests or
complaints the location of the cable
operator’s consumer service offices; and
the provision to customers (or potential
customers) of information on billing or
services.’’ Based on our review of the
statutory text and legislative history, we
find no indication that Congress
intended that standards governing a
cable operator’s ‘‘direct business
relation’’ with its subscribers should
count toward the franchise fee cap.
Apart from ACA, no commenter argued
59 We clarify that if LFAs request build-out to an
area that includes a public building, we would
consider that to be a build-out requirement that is
not subject to the franchise fee. However, we note
that our conclusion with respect to build-out and
customer service requirements is entirely separate
from our findings regarding the provision of free or
discounted services to public buildings and the
provision of I-Net services. I-Net services as well as
free or discounted services to public buildings are
counted toward the franchise fee for the reasons
explained above.
E:\FR\FM\27AUR1.SGM
27AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
that customer service obligations should
be included as franchise fees.60
59. As we explain in this section, we
conclude that cable-related, in-kind
contributions will count toward the five
percent franchise fee cap at their fair
market value. Because we conclude
above that most cable related, in-kind
contributions must be included in the
franchise fee, cable operators and LFAs
must assign a value to them. In our prior
rulemakings, we did not provide
guidance on how to value such
contributions, but in the Second
FNPRM, the Commission recognized
that cable-related contributions could
count toward the franchise fee cap at
cost or at fair market value, and
proposed to count toward the franchise
fee cap at their fair market value.
60. Most critiques of applying fair
market valuation in this context
challenge how it could be applied to
PEG channel capacity. But, as discussed
above, we have not yet determined
whether to assign the value of PEG
channel capacity contributions toward
the five percent franchise fee cap, and
therefore we do not need to address
these arguments.
61. We must address the value of
other in-kind contributions, however,
including free service to public
buildings and I-Net contributions. We
believe that fair market value, where
there is a product in the market,61 is the
most reasonable valuation for in-kind
contributions because it is easy to
ascertain—cable operators have rate
cards to set the rates that they charge
customers for the services that they
offer. Moreover, a fair market valuation
‘‘reflects the fact that, if a franchising
authority did not require an in-kind
assessment as part of its franchise, it
would have no choice but to pay the
market rate for services it needs from
the cable operator or another
provider.’’ 62 In contrast, valuing these
in-kind contributions at cost would
‘‘shift the true cost of an exaction from
their taxpayer base at large to the
smaller subset of taxpayers who are also
cable subscribers.’’ As we note above,
Congress adopted a broad definition of
franchise fee to limit the amount that
60 For the reasons discussed above, we disagree
with ACA that the costs of complying with
mandated customer service standards should be
counted toward the franchise fee cap.
61 We note that certain business or enterprise
services may be comparable to I-Nets.
62 This demonstrates the flaw in NATOA et al.’s
argument that we must provide guidance on how
to calculate fair market value. If the LFA believes
that the cable operator’s proposed valuation is too
high, the LFA is free to forgo the in-kind
contribution, accept a monetary franchise fee
payment, and use the funds it received to purchase
the good or service in the competitive marketplace.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Aug 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
LFAs may exact from cable operators.
Accordingly, we conclude that a fair
market valuation for in-kind
contribution best adheres to
Congressional intent.
62. The franchise fee rulings we adopt
in this Order are prospective. Thus,
cable operators may count only ongoing
and future in-kind contributions toward
the five percent franchise fee cap after
the Order is effective. There is broad
record support for applying the rulings
prospectively; no commenter argues that
our rulings should apply retroactively to
allow cable operators to recoup past
payments that exceed the five percent
franchise fee cap. To the extent a
franchise agreement that is currently in
place conflicts with this Order, we
encourage the parties to negotiate
franchise modifications within a
reasonable time.63 If a franchising
authority refuses to modify any
provision of a franchise agreement that
is inconsistent with this Order, that
provision is subject to preemption
under section 636(c).
63. Many LFAs express concern that
our rulings could disrupt their budgets,
which rely upon the franchise fees that
they expect to receive. It is by no means
clear from the record what fiscal choices
remain available to the LFAs, but in any
event, delaying the effect of our decision
to address this concern would not be
consistent with the statutory text. It is
strongly in the public interest to prevent
the harms from existing franchise
agreements to continue for years until
those agreements expire. In addition,
the changes we adopt in this document
were reasonably foreseeable because we
largely adopt the tentative conclusions
set forth in the Second FNPRM.64
Finally, we note that LFAs can continue
to benefit from their agreements by
63 The City Coalition proposes that the parties
should modify their franchises to comply with this
Order via the franchise modification process set
forth in section 625 of the Act. Under those
procedures, an LFA has 120 days to make a final
decision about a cable operator’s request to modify
a franchise agreement. We do not adopt this
framework, however, because as NCTA points out,
the parties may not modify PEG requirements under
section 625, and therefore cable operators and LFAs
could not use that procedure to bring franchise
agreements into compliance in every case.
Therefore, we encourage the parties to negotiate
franchise modifications within a reasonable time
and find that 120 days should be, in most cases, a
reasonable time for the adoption of franchise
modifications.
64 Indeed, the lawfulness of excluding costs
associated with PEG/I-Nets from the franchise fee
cap has been under Commission scrutiny for more
than a decade, and in 2008, the Sixth Circuit
affirmed the Commission’s determination as to new
entrants that PEG related costs which do not qualify
as capital costs are subject to the franchise fee cap.
Therefore, we find Anne Arundel County’s
argument that this ‘‘decision represents [an]
‘unexpected surprise’’’ to be unfounded.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
44737
choosing to continue to receive their
existing in-kind contributions, while
reducing the monetary payments they
receive.65 Thus, consistent with the Act,
we apply our rulings to future
contributions cable operators make
pursuant to existing franchise
agreements.
64. In this section, we address the
second issue remanded from the Sixth
Circuit in Montgomery County, which
relates to the Commission’s mixed-use
rule. As explained above, the court in
Montgomery County found that the
Commission, in its Second Report and
Order and Order on Reconsideration,
failed to identify a valid statutory basis
for its application of the mixed-use rule
to incumbent cable operators because
the statutory provision on which the
Commission relied to do so—section
602(7)(C) of the Act—applies by its
terms only to Title II carriers, and
‘‘many incumbent cable operators are
not Title II carriers.’’ The court thus
vacated and remanded the mixed-use
rule as applied to those cable operators,
directing the Commission ‘‘to set forth
a valid statutory basis . . . for the rule
as so applied.’’ For the reasons set forth
below, we adopt our tentative
conclusion that the mixed-use rule
prohibits LFAs from regulating under
Title VI the provision of any services
other than cable services offered over
the cable systems of incumbent cable
operators, except as expressly permitted
in the Act.
65. Our conclusions regarding the
scope of LFAs’ authority to regulate
incumbent cable operators’ non-cable
services, facilities, and equipment
follow from the statutory scheme.
Congress in Title VI intended, among
other things, to circumscribe the ability
of franchising authorities to use their
Title VI authority to regulate non-cable
services provided over the cable systems
65 Take, for example, a franchise agreement that
requires a cable operator to deliver free cable
service to all municipal buildings and contribute a
monetary payment of five percent of its gross
revenues derived from the operation of its cable
system to provide cable services. In that case, the
LFA may wish to either (1) continue to receive the
existing free cable service and a monetary payment
of five percent minus the fair market value of that
service, or (2) discontinue service and receive a
monetary payment of five percent, or (3) reduce the
free cable service to select municipal buildings and
receive a monetary payment of the five percent
minus the fair market value of the reduced service.
However, what an LFA may not do is ask a cable
operator to ‘‘voluntarily’’ waive the statutory cap by
asking it to continue providing free cable service to
all municipal buildings and contribute the five
percent monetary payment, or request that a cable
operator waive anything else under the statute as
interpreted by the Commission. Accordingly, we
reject the request of NATOA that we clarify that this
Order ‘‘is permissive not mandatory.’’ Complying
with the terms of the statute is not optional.
E:\FR\FM\27AUR1.SGM
27AUR1
44738
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
of cable operators and the facilities and
equipment used to provide those
services. As explained below, the
legislative history of the 1984 Cable Act
and subsequent amendments to Title VI
reflect Congress’s recognition that cable
operators potentially could compete
with local telephone companies in the
provision of telecommunications service
and its intent to maintain the thenexisting status quo concerning
regulatory jurisdiction over cable
operators’ non-cable services, facilities,
and equipment. Under the status quo,
regulation of non-cable services
provided over cable systems, including
telecommunications and information
services, was the exclusive province of
either the Commission or state public
utility commissions.66
66. The Mixed-Use Rule Prohibits
LFAs From Regulating Under Title VI
the Non-Cable Services, Facilities, and
Equipment of Incumbent Cable
Operators That Are Also Common
Carriers. As an initial matter, we
reaffirm the Commission’s application
of the mixed-use rule to prohibit LFAs
from using their cable franchising
authority to regulate any services other
than cable services provided over the
cable systems of any incumbent cable
operator that is a common carrier,67
with the exception of channel capacity
on I-Nets.68
67. As noted above, the Commission
in the First Report and Order found that
the then-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, in
66 Specifically, the Commission historically has
had jurisdiction over interstate telecommunications
and information services. States have had
jurisdiction over intrastate telecommunications
services but not information services, which are
jurisdictionally interstate. We thus reject the City of
Eugene’s suggestion that maintaining the ‘‘status
quo’’ supports broad state and local authority over
non-cable services provided via cable systems.
67 ‘‘Non-cable’’ services offered by cable operators
include telecommunications services and nontelecommunications services. Telecommunications
services offered by cable operators include, for
example, business data services, which enable
dedicated point-to-point transmission of data at
certain guaranteed speeds and service levels using
high-capacity connections, and wireless
telecommunications services. Nontelecommunications services offered by cable
operators include, but are not limited to,
information services (such as broadband internet
access services), private carrier services (such as
certain types of business data services), and Wi-Fi
services. Cable operators also may offer facilitiesbased interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP) service, which the Commission has not
classified as either a telecommunications service or
an information service, but which is not a cable
service.
68 Nothing in this Order is intended to limit LFAs’
express authority under section 611(b) of the Act to
require I-Net capacity.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Aug 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
violation of section 621(a)(1) of the Act.
The Commission adopted the mixed-use
rule with respect to new entrants to
address this unreasonable barrier. It
provides, in relevant part that LFAs’
jurisdiction applies only to the
provision of cable services over cable
systems. In particular, to the extent a
cable operator provides non-cable
services and/or operates facilities that
do not qualify as a cable system, it is
unreasonable for an LFA to refuse to
award a franchise based on issues
related to such services or facilities. For
example, an LFA may not use its video
franchising authority to attempt to
regulate an entire network beyond the
provision of cable services.
68. The Commission in the Second
Report and Order extended to
incumbent cable operators several rules
adopted in the First Report and Order,
including the mixed-use rule. Although,
as noted, the Sixth Circuit in
Montgomery County vacated and
remanded the Commission’s application
of the mixed-use rule with respect to
incumbent cable operators that are not
common carriers, it left undisturbed
application of the rule to incumbent
cable operators that are also common
carriers.69 Consistent with the court’s
ruling, therefore, we adopt our tentative
conclusion and reaffirm that the mixeduse rule prohibits LFAs from regulating
the provision of non-cable services
offered over the cable systems of
incumbent cable operators that are
common carriers.70
69. Our interpretation is consistent
with the text of section 602(7)(C), which
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.’’ We
are not persuaded by assertions to the
contrary. Anne Arundel County et al.
argues, for example, that a cable
operator’s provision of
telecommunications services via its
cable system (either directly or through
a subsidiary) ‘‘does not . . . suddenly
[transform its cable system] into a Title
II facility’’ for purposes of applying the
section 602(7)(C) common carrier
exception. City of Philadelphia et al.
similarly argues that the common carrier
69 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, to
the extent that an incumbent cable operator
provides telecommunications service, it would be
treated as a common carrier subject to Title II of the
Act with respect to its provision of such
telecommunications service.
70 NCTA asserts that many cable operators
currently provide telecommunications services.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
exception in section 602(7)(C) was
meant to protect Title II common
carriers from regulation by LFAs under
their Title VI franchising authority and
thus cannot reasonably be read to apply
to any cable operator that provides Title
II and other non-cable services over a
system that is a cable system.
70. To the extent these commenters
argue that section 602(7)(C) precludes
LFAs only from regulating non-cable
services provided over the facilities of
incumbent local exchange carriers that
subsequently begin to provide cable
service, we find such argument is not
supported by the language of the statute.
As noted in the Second FNPRM,
although new entrants into the cable
services market may confront obstacles
different from those of incumbent cable
operators, the statute makes no
distinction between these types of
providers. In the absence of any textual
basis for treating incumbent cable
operators that provide
telecommunications services differently
from new entrants that do so, we
conclude that a facility should be
categorized as ‘‘a facility of a common
carrier’’ under section 602(7)(C) so long
as it is being used to provide some type
of telecommunications service,
irrespective of whether the facility was
originally deployed by a provider that
historically was treated as a ‘‘common
carrier.’’
71. This interpretation also is
consistent with the legislative history of
the 1984 Cable Act. Although, as City of
Philadelphia et al. points out, one of the
concerns expressed in the legislative
history was the potential that cable
operators’ provision of
telecommunications services could
enable large users of such services to
bypass the local telephone companies
and thereby threaten universal service,
the legislative history also reflects
Congressional recognition that
‘‘ultimately, local telephone companies
and cable companies could compete in
all communications services.’’ The
legislative history clarifies, moreover,
that Congress intended the 1984 Cable
Act to ‘‘maintain[] [then-]existing
regulatory authority over all . . .
communications services offered by a
cable system, including . . . services
that could compete with
communications services offered by
telephone companies.’’ Indeed, the
legislative history is replete with
statements reflecting Congress’s intent
to preserve the then-status quo
regarding the ability of federal, state,
and local authorities to regulate noncable services provided via cable
systems. In light of its stated intention
to maintain the jurisdictional status quo,
E:\FR\FM\27AUR1.SGM
27AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
we find that Congress intended via
section 602(7)(C) to preclude LFAs from
regulating under Title VI the provision
of telecommunications services by
incumbent cable operators, services that
historically have been within the
exclusive purview of the Commission
(with respect to interstate services) or
state public utility commissions (with
respect to intrastate services).71
Moreover, section 602(7)(C) broadly
states that, with narrow exceptions, the
facility of a common carrier is only
‘‘considered a cable system to the extent
such facility is used in the transmission
of video programming directly to
subscribers,’’ and therefore not with
respect to provision of any other
services. For these reasons, we see no
basis for altering our previous
conclusion, as upheld by the Sixth
Circuit,72 that the mixed-use rule
prohibits LFAs from exercising their
Title VI authority to regulate the
provision of non-cable services
provided via the cable systems of
incumbent cable operators that are
common carriers, except as otherwise
provided in the Act.
72. The Mixed-Use Rule Prohibits
LFAs From Regulating Under Title VI
the Non-Cable Services, Facilities, and
Equipment of Incumbent Cable
Operators That Are Not Common
Carriers. We also adopt our tentative
conclusion that LFAs are precluded
from using their Title VI franchising
authority to regulate the non-cable
services (e.g., information services such
as broadband internet access) of
incumbent cable operators that do not
provide telecommunications services.
As directed by the court, we explain
herein our statutory bases for
concluding that LFAs lack authority
under Title VI to regulate non-cable
services of incumbent cable operators
that do not provide telecommunications
services.
73. Section 624 of the Act, which
principally governs franchising
authority regulation of services,
facilities, and equipment, provides in
71 This interpretation is reinforced by both the
text of section 621(b)(3) of the Act and its legislative
history (relating to the provision of
telecommunications services by cable operators),
which Congress added to Title VI through the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. The fact that
section 621(b)(3) seeks to protect incumbent cable
operators from LFA regulation under Title VI when
they provide certain non-cable services, i.e.,
telecommunications services, further undermines
LFAs’ assertion that the common carrier exception
in section 602(7)(C) was intended to shield from
LFA regulation only the provision of non-cable
services by new entrants.
72 Certain LFA advocates appear to concede that
the Act precludes LFAs from regulating under Title
VI a cable operator’s provision of
telecommunications services via its cable system.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Aug 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
subsection (a) that ‘‘[a] franchising
authority may not regulate the services,
facilities, and equipment provided by a
cable operator except to the extent
consistent with [Title VI of the Act].’’ 73
The subsequent provision, section
624(b)(1), provides that franchising
authorities ‘‘may not . . . establish
requirements for video programming or
other information services.’’ 74 Although
the term ‘‘information service’’ is not
defined in section 624, the legislative
history of that provision distinguishes
‘‘information service’’ from ‘‘cable
service.’’ In particular, the legislative
history explains 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 allows transactions
between subscribers and cable operators
or third parties.’’
74. We find significant that the
description of the term ‘‘information
services’’ in the 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’’)
aligns closely with the 1996
Telecommunications Act’s definition of
‘‘information service’’ codified 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’’). We conclude,
therefore, that for purposes of applying
section 624(b), interpreting the term
‘‘information services’’ to have the
meaning set forth in section 3(24) of the
Act is most consistent with
Congressional intent.75 Because the
Commission has determined that
broadband internet access service is an
73 47
U.S.C. 544(a).
the preamble to section 624(b)
specifically limits the provision to franchises
‘‘granted after the effective date of this title’’ and
therefore appears to grandfather local regulation of
information services that may have occurred prior
to 1984, when Title VI took effect, we note that very
few franchises in effect today were granted prior to
that year.
75 The fact that the ‘‘information services’’
definition in section 3(24) of the Act was enacted
as part of the 1996 Act—more than ten years after
Congress passed section 624(b)—supports our
conclusion that LFAs lack authority under section
624(b)(1) to regulate information services. The
absence in Title VI of specific references to the
section 3(24) definition of ‘‘information service’’
suggests only that Congress, in passing the 1996
Act, did not wish to re-open the 1984 Cable Act;
it does not indicate that Congress intended to grant
LFAs general authority to regulate information
services.
74 While
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
44739
‘‘information service’’ under section
3(24),76 we likewise find that section
624(b)(1) precludes LFAs from
regulating broadband internet access
provided via the cable systems of
incumbent cable operators that are not
common carriers. Moreover, even if the
definition set forth in section 3(24) was
not the intended definition of
‘‘information services’’ for purposes of
section 624(b)(1), the highly analogous
descriptions of this term in the
legislative history of the 1984 Act also
would apply to broadband internet
access service. Thus, in either case,
LFAs may not lawfully impose fees for
the provision of information services
(such as broadband internet access) via
a franchised cable system or require a
franchise (or other authorization) for the
provision of information services via
such cable system.77 We also clarify that
LFAs and other state and local
governmental units cannot impose
additional requirements on mixed-use
‘‘cable systems’’ in a manner
inconsistent with this Order and the Act
under the pretense that they are merely
regulating facilities and equipment
rather than information services.78
75. Although we recognize that a later
provision, section 624(b)(2)(B), permits
franchising authorities to enforce
requirements for ‘‘broad categories of
video programming or other services,’’
when read together with the specific
injunction against regulation of
‘‘information services’’ in section
624(b)(1), we find that it would be
unreasonable to construe section
624(b)(2)(B) as authorizing LFA
regulation of information services when
(b)(1) precludes franchising authorities
from regulating such services.79 As we
noted in the Second FNPRM, the
legislative history explains that section
624(b)(2)’s grant of authority ‘‘to enforce
76 The Commission in 2018 reinstated the
‘‘information service’’ classification of broadband
internet access service.
77 Application of the mixed-use rule to broadband
internet access service is not tied to the
Commission’s classification of broadband as an
information service. Under the Commission’s prior
conclusion in 2015 that broadband internet access
service is a Title II telecommunications service, the
mixed-use rule would apply based on the
provisions of Title VI for the reasons explained
above.
78 For this reason, we reject assertions that section
624’s grant of authority to ‘‘establish’’ and
‘‘enforce’’ certain requirements for facilities and
equipment would permit LFAs to bypass the
statutory prohibition on regulation of information
services.
79 We note further that the limitation on the
ability of franchising authorities to establish
requirements under section 624(b)(1) extends
specifically to ‘‘information services,’’ whereas the
authority granted to franchising authorities in
section 624(b)(2) makes no mention of ‘‘information
services.’’
E:\FR\FM\27AUR1.SGM
27AUR1
44740
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
requirements . . . for broad categories
of video programming or other services’’
was intended merely to ‘‘assure[] the
franchising authority that commitments
made in an arms-length situation will be
met,’’ while protecting the cable
operator from ‘‘being forced to provide
specific programming or items of value
which are not utilized in the operation
of the cable system.’’ Reading these
provisions together, it is apparent that
Congress intended to permit LFAs to
enforce franchise requirements
governing ‘‘other services’’ under (b)(2),
but only to the extent they are otherwise
permitted to establish such
requirements under (b)(1).80 Because
LFAs lack authority to regulate
information services under section
624(b)(1), they may not lawfully enforce
provisions of a franchise agreement
permitting such regulation under
section 624(b)(2), even if such
provisions resulted from arms-length
negotiations between the cable operator
and LFA.81 That is, the grant of
authority to ‘‘enforce’’ certain
requirements under section 624(b)(2)(B)
does not give franchising authorities an
independent right to impose
requirements that they otherwise may
not ‘‘establish’’ under section 624(b)(1).
We thus reject claims to the contrary.
76. As discussed above, Congress in
the 1984 Cable Act intended to preserve
the status quo with respect to federal,
state, and local jurisdiction over noncable services, which lends further
support to our conclusion that LFAs
may not use their cable franchising
authority to regulate information
services provided over a cable system.
Because information services that are
interstate historically have fallen
outside the lawful regulatory purview of
state and local authorities,82 including
80 Although the legislative history provides
examples of ‘‘broad categories of video
programming,’’ it does not specify what services are
encompassed within the phrase ‘‘other services’’ for
purposes of applying section 624(b)(2)(B). Although
the phrase ‘‘other services’’ is ambiguous, it would
be unreasonable to conclude that Congress intended
for it to include services, such as information
services, that franchising authorities are not
empowered to regulate under section 624. Rather,
we find it more reasonable to construe the phrase
as referring to services that franchising authorities
lawfully could require under Title VI, such as the
provision of PEG channels and I-Net capacity. We,
therefore, reject Anne Arundel County et al.’s
assertion that the term ‘‘other service’’ in section
624(b)(2)(B) includes information services.
81 We thus disagree with City Coalition’s
contention that ‘‘[i]f . . . a cable operator agrees to
undertake obligations regarding information
services though arms-length negotiation—be they
obligations regarding facilities that are not part of
the cable system or obligations regarding noncable
services—then a LFA may enforce those
obligations.’’
82 The Commission has determined that the term
‘‘information service’’ has essentially the same
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Aug 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
LFAs, construing section 624(b) to bring
those services within the scope of
permissible LFA authority under Title
VI would be fundamentally at odds with
Congressional intent. For this reason,
we reject City of Philadelphia et al.’s
contention that our application of the
mixed-use rule is barred by the Act
because ‘‘[t]he ‘regulatory and
jurisdictional status quo’ in 1984 . . .
included [LFAs’] use of the franchise
and franchise agreement to regulate . . .
cable systems that [Congress] recognized
were carrying both cable services and
non-cable communications services.’’
The statutory design as reflected in
other provisions of Title VI reinforces
our conclusion that LFAs are precluded
under section 624(b)(1) from regulating
non-cable services provided over the
cable systems of incumbent cable
operators that are not common carriers.
LFAs, therefore, may not lawfully
regulate the non-cable services of such
cable operators, including information
services (such as broadband internet
access), private carrier services (such as
certain types of business data services),
and interconnected VoIP service.83 For
example, this precludes LFAs from not
only requiring such a cable operator to
pay fees or secure a franchise to provide
broadband service via its franchised
cable system, but also requiring it to
meet prescribed service quality or
performance standards for broadband
service carried over that cable system.
77. We find unconvincing arguments
that the statute compels a broader
reading of LFAs’ authority under Title
VI to regulate cable operators’ non-cable
services, facilities, and equipment.
Anne Arundel County et al. maintains,
for example, that because section 624(a)
grants LFAs authority to regulate a
‘‘cable operator,’’ a term the Act defines
as ‘‘[a] person . . . who provides cable
service over a cable system,’’ LFAs
generally are authorized to regulate any
of the services provided by a ‘‘cable
operator’’ over a ‘‘cable system,’’
including non-cable services.84 Anne
meaning as the term ‘‘enhanced service’’ for
purposes of applying the Act. Moreover, even
assuming that LFAs at the time Congress passed the
1984 Cable Act used their cable franchising
authority to regulate non-cable services as City of
Philadelphia et al. asserts, the provisions of section
624 plainly evidence Congressional intent to treat
pre- and post-Act cable franchises differently.
83 Although interconnected VoIP service has not
been classified by the Commission, LFA regulation
of this service is prohibited under the mixed-use
rule, as clarified in this Order, regardless of whether
it is deemed a telecommunications service or an
information service.
84 Insofar as Anne Arundel County et al. is
arguing that ‘‘once a cable operator, always a cable
operator,’’ and ‘‘once a cable system, always a cable
system,’’ i.e., that when a cable operator deploys
facilities, those facilities remain part of a cable
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Arundel County et al. contends further
that under section 624(b), LFAs ‘‘to the
extent related to the establishment or
operation of a cable system . . . may
establish requirements for facilities and
equipment’’ and argues that the Act
cannot be construed as limiting LFAs’
jurisdiction to cable services since it
permits LFAs to require, for example,
build out and institutional networks.
We disagree with these arguments.
Although, as Anne Arundel County et
al. and others note, the Act in certain
circumstances permits LFAs to impose
on cable operators certain requirements
that are not strictly related to the
provision of cable service, such
circumstances constitute limited
exceptions to the general prohibition on
LFA regulation of non-cable services
contained in section 624.85 They also do
not override the specific prohibition on
regulation of information services set
forth in section 624(b)(1). This
interpretation accords with one of the
1984 Cable Act’s principal purposes to
‘‘continue[] reliance on the local
franchising process as the primary
means of cable television regulation,
while defining and limiting the
authority that a franchising authority
may exercise through the franchise
process.’’
78. We also conclude, contrary to the
assertions of some commenters, that it
would conflict with Congress’s goals in
the Act to permit LFAs to treat
incumbent cable operators that are not
common carriers differently from
incumbent cable operators and new
entrants that are common carriers in
their provision of information services,
including broadband internet access
service. As we noted in the Second
FNPRM, incumbent and new entrant
cable operators (whether or not they are
also common carriers) often compete in
the same markets and offer nearly
identical services to consumers. Thus,
to allow LFAs to regulate the latter
group of providers more strictly, such as
by subjecting them to franchise and fee
requirements for the provision of noncable services, could place them at a
system even when used to provide non-cable
services, we disagree with that assertion. Consistent
with our interpretation of section 602(7)(C) above,
we find that a more reasonable reading of the
statute is that the nature of facilities (i.e., ‘‘cable
system’’ or not) depends on how the facilities are
used, not on whether the provider offered cable
service at the time the facilities were deployed.
85 NATOA et al. agree that the grant to LFAs of
authority to require I-Nets is an exception from the
general injunction in section 621(b)(3)(D) against
requiring cable operators to provide
telecommunications services or facilities. NATOA
eta l. also appear to concede that section 624(b)
precludes LFAs from regulating under Titled VI
information services provided over cable systems.
E:\FR\FM\27AUR1.SGM
27AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
competitive disadvantage.86 A report
submitted by NCTA asserts, for
example, that two fixed broadband
providers may build out their networks
differently, with one utilizing wireless
backhaul and the other using landline
backhaul, but ‘‘if one has inputs
subjected to [fees] and the other does
not, the differential . . . treatment can
distort competition between the two,
even when the services provided . . .
are indistinguishable to the consumer.’’
The distortion to competition that stems
from ‘‘hampering a subset of
competitors,’’ in turn, reduces the
incentives of those competitors to invest
in cable system upgrades for the
provision of both cable and non-cable
services, which could thwart the 1996
Act’s goals to promote competition
among communications providers and
secure lower prices and higher quality
services for consumers.87 Such
regulations, moreover, impede the
Commission’s development of a
‘‘consistent regulatory framework across
all broadband platforms,’’ which is
‘‘[o]ne of the cornerstones of [federal]
broadband policy.’’ 88
79. We also are not convinced by
arguments that interpreting the Act to
bar LFAs from regulating non-cable
facilities and equipment placed in
public rights-of-way would pose a safety
risk to the public because cable
operators would have unfettered
discretion to install non-cable facilities
without review or approval by local
authorities. Section 636(a) of the Act
specifically provides that ‘‘[n]othing in
[Title VI] shall be construed to affect
any authority of any State, political
86 As NCTA notes, under the First Report and
Order, LFAs may not lawfully require a
telecommunications carrier with a preexisting right
to access public rights-of-way for the provision of
telecommunications services, to secure a Title VI
franchise to provide non-cable services over its
network. We agree with NCTA that a cable operator
with a preexisting right to access public rights-ofway for the provision of cable service likewise
should not be required to obtain a separate
authorization to provide non-cable services over its
cable system, given that there is no incremental
burden on the rights-of-way.
87 We find no record basis for concluding that
these concerns are raised only with respect to
incumbent cable operators, and not new entrants.
88 The fact that section 602(7)(C) excludes from
the term ‘‘cable system’’ a facility of a common
carrier subject to Title II of the Act does not
persuade us that Congress intended to permit LFAs
to regulate incumbent cable operators that are not
common carriers differently from incumbent cable
operators and new entrants that are common
carriers in their provision of non-cable services.
Rather, given Congress’s desire in the Act to ensure
‘‘competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory’’
regulation, we find that section 602(7)(C)’s carve
out of Title II facilities from the definition of ‘‘cable
system’’ merely evinces Congressional intent to
preclude franchising authorities from regulating any
telecommunications services carried over a cable
system.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Aug 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
subdivision, or agency thereof, or
franchising authority, regarding matters
of public health, safety, and welfare, to
the extent consistent with the express
provisions of [Title VI].’’ This provision,
which is an express exception to Title
VI’s general prohibition on franchising
authority regulation of non-cable
facilities and equipment, thus permits
LFAs to impose requirements on noncable facilities and equipment designed
to protect public safety, so long as such
requirements otherwise are consistent
with the provisions of Title VI.
80. As noted above, Title VI does not
permit franchising authorities to extract
fees or impose franchise or other
requirements on cable operators insofar
as they are providing services other than
cable services. Ample record evidence
shows, however, that some states and
localities are purporting to assert
authority to do so outside the limited
scope of their authority under Title VI.
These efforts appear to have followed
the decision by the Supreme Court of
Oregon in City of Eugene v. Comcast,
which upheld a local government’s
imposition of an additional seven
percent ‘‘telecommunications’’ license
fee on the provision of broadband
services over a franchised cable system
with mixed use facilities. To address
this problem, we now expressly
preempt any state or local requirement,
whether or not imposed by a franchising
authority, that would impose
obligations on franchised cable
operators beyond what Title VI allows.89
Specifically, we preempt (1) any
imposition of fees on a franchised cable
operator or any affiliate using the same
facilities franchised to the cable
operator 90 that exceeds the formula set
forth in section 622(b) of the Act and the
rulings we adopt in this document,
whether styled as a ‘‘franchise’’ fee,
‘‘right-of-access’’ fee, or a fee on noncable (e.g., telecommunications or
broadband) services, and (2) any
requirement that a cable operator with
a Title VI franchise secure an additional
franchise or other authorization to
provide non-cable services via its cable
system.91 We base these conclusions on
89 Such preemption applies to the imposition of
duplicative taxes, fees, assessments, or other
requirements on affiliates of the cable operator that
utilize the cable system to provide non-cable
services.
90 For example, a cable operator may provide
voice or broadband services through affiliates, and
an LFA could not impose duplicative fees on those
affiliates.
91 We do not set forth an exhaustive list of state
and local laws and legal requirements that are
deemed expressly preempted. Rather, we simply
clarify that state and local laws and other legal
requirements are preempted to the extent that they
conflict with the Act and the Commission’s
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
44741
Congress’s express decision to preempt
state and local laws that conflict with
Title VI of the Communications Act
(section 636(c)), the text and structure of
Title VI and the Act as a whole,
Congressional and Commission policies
(including the policy of nonregulation
of information services), and the
Supremacy Clause of the U.S.
Constitution.92
81. Authority to Preempt. Congress
has the authority to preempt state law
under Article VI of the U.S.
Constitution. While Congress’s intent to
preempt sometimes needs to be
discerned or implied from a purported
conflict between federal and state law,
here Congress spoke directly to its
intent to preempt state and local
requirements that are inconsistent with
Title VI. This express preemption
extends beyond the actions of any state
or local franchising authority. Section
636(c) of the Act provides that ‘‘any
provision of law of any State, political
subdivision, or agency thereof, or
franchising authority, or any provision
of any franchise granted by such
authority, which is inconsistent with
this chapter shall be deemed to be
implementing rules and policies. As discussed in
paragraph below, such preempted requirements
include those expressly approved in Eugene.
92 Contrary to some assertions in the record, we
find that the Second FNPRM provided adequate
notice to interested parties that the Commission
could exercise its preemption authority under
section 636(c) to address local regulation of noncable services outside Title VI. In support of its
tentative conclusion that ‘‘[s]ection 624(b) of the
Act prohibits LFAs from using their franchising
authority to regulate the provision of information
services, including broadband internet access
service,’’ the Second FNPRM specifically cited
section 636(c) and set forth the text of that
provision nearly verbatim. In addition, the
Commission in the Second FNPRM tentatively
concluded that preempted ‘‘entry and exit
restrictions’’ include requirements that an
incumbent cable operator obtain a franchise to
provide broadband internet access service and that
LFAs therefore are expressly preempted from
imposing such requirements. The Commission
sought comment on that tentative conclusion and
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.’’ Such regulations
include duplicative fee and franchise requirements
imposed by franchising authorities such as the City
of Eugene, which is a ‘‘governmental entity
empowered by . . . [s]tate [] or local law to grant
a [cable franchise].’’ Indeed, the fact that multiple
LFA advocates recognized that the Second FNPRM
could be read to seek comment on the
Commission’s authority to preempt requirements
imposed outside Title VI contradicts claims that the
Second FNPRM did not adequately apprise parties
of the possible scope of the Commission’s
preemption ruling. Moreover, the fact that cable
commenters in this proceeding referenced section
636(c) as a potential basis for our preemption ruling
demonstrates that such ruling is a ‘‘logical
outgrowth’’ of the Second FNPRM.
E:\FR\FM\27AUR1.SGM
27AUR1
44742
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
preempted and superseded.’’ 93 The
reference in section 636(c) to ‘‘this
chapter’’ means that Congress intended
to preempt any state or local law (or any
franchise provision) that is inconsistent
with any provision of the
Communications Act, whether or not
codified in Title VI.94 Moreover, section
636(c) applies broadly to ‘‘any
[inconsistent] provision of law’’ of ‘‘any
State, political subdivision, or agency
thereof.’’ 95 That means that Congress
intended that states and localities could
not ‘‘end-run’’ the Act’s limitations by
using other governmental entities or
other sources of authority to accomplish
indirectly what franchising authorities
are prohibited from doing directly.96
82. Where Congress provides an
express preemption provision such as
section 636(c), the Commission has
delegated authority to identify the scope
of the subject matter expressly
preempted and assess whether a state’s
law falls within that scope. The
Commission may, therefore, expressly
bar states and localities from acting in
a manner that is inconsistent with both
the Act and the Commission’s
interpretations of the Act, so long as
those interpretations are valid. We
therefore disagree with assertions that
the Commission lacks authority to
preempt non-cable regulations imposed
by states and localities pursuant to nonTitle VI sources of legal authority.
83. Scope of Preemption. The
Commission’s task, then, in interpreting
the scope of preemption under section
636(c) is to determine whether specific
state or local requirements are
inconsistent with Title VI or other
provisions in the Communications Act.
Looking at the provisions of Title VI and
the Act as a whole, we have little
trouble concluding that Congress did
not intend to permit states,
municipalities, or franchising
authorities to impose fees or other
93 For purposes of this provision, the term ‘‘State’’
has the meaning given such term in section 3 of the
Act. Section 3, in turn, provides that ‘‘the term
‘State’ includes the District of Columbia and the
Territories and possessions.’’
94 Section 636(c)’s reference to ‘‘this chapter’’ is
to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
which is codified in Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the
United States Code. Section 636(c)’s reference to
‘‘this chapter’’ stands in contrast to other provisions
in section 636, which reference ‘‘this subchapter,’’
or Title VI of the Act.
95 Contrary to some LFAs’ assertion, given that
Congress in section 636(c) expressly preempted
certain state and local laws, we need not find that
federal preemption of laws governing intrastate
telecommunications services is permissible under
the ‘‘impossibility exception.’’ Nevertheless, we
find that the impossibility doctrine further supports
our decision herein.
96 Contrary to the suggestion of the City of
Eugene, our preemption authority does not depend
on section 706 of the Act.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Aug 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
requirements on cable operators beyond
those specified under Title VI, under the
guise of regulating ‘‘non-cable services’’
or otherwise restricting a cable
operator’s construction, operation, or
management of facilities in the rights-ofway.
84. As an initial matter, we note that
Title VI establishes a framework that
reflects the basic terms of a bargain—a
cable operator may apply for and obtain
a franchise to access and operate
facilities in the local rights-of-way, and
in exchange, a franchising authority
may impose fees and other requirements
as set forth and circumscribed in the
Act. So long as the cable operator pays
its fees and complies with the other
terms of its franchise, it has a license to
operate and manage its cable system free
from the specter of compliance with any
new, additional, or unspecified
conditions (by franchise or otherwise)
for its use of the same rights-of-way.
85. The substantive provisions of Title
VI make the terms of this bargain clear.
For starters, section 621(a)(1) provides
franchising authorities with the right to
grant franchises, and section 621(a)(2)
explains that such franchises ‘‘shall be
construed to authorize the construction
of a cable system over public rights-ofway . . .’’ A ‘‘cable operator,’’ in turn,
may not provide ‘‘cable service’’ unless
the cable operator has obtained such a
franchise. Other provisions make clear
that a franchise does not merely
authorize the construction of a cable
system, but also the ‘‘management and
operation of such a cable system,97
including the installation of Wi-Fi and
small cell antennas attached to the cable
system.’’
86. The right to construct, manage,
and operate a ‘‘cable system’’ does not
mean merely the right to provide cable
service.98 Numerous provisions in Title
VI evidence Congress’s knowledge and
understanding that cable systems would
carry non-cable services—including
telecommunications and information
services. The definition of ‘‘cable
system,’’ for example, anticipates that
some facilities may carry both
telecommunications and cable services.
97 We therefore reject LFA assertions that the
absence in section 621(a)(2) of an express grant of
authority to ‘‘operate’’ a cable system evinces
Congress’s intent that a Title VI franchise bestow
only the right to construct, but not to operate, a
cable system over public rights-of-way.
98 As noted, under section 621(a)(2), ‘‘[a]ny
franchise shall be construed to authorize the
construction of a cable system over public rightsof-way.’’ Because the ‘‘construction of a cable
system’’ includes the installation of facilities and
equipment needed to provide both cable and noncable services, such as wireless broadband and WiFi services, the grant of a Title VI franchise bestows
the right to place facilities and equipment in rightsof-way to provide such services.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
With respect to information services,
section 601 of the Act provides that one
of Title VI’s purposes is to ‘‘assure that
cable communications provide and are
encouraged to provide the widest
possible diversity of information
sources and services to the public.’’
And, as we have already seen, Congress
expressly provided in section 624(b) for
‘‘mixed-use’’ facilities that carry both
cable services and ‘‘video programming
or other information services.’’
87. The legislative history reinforces
the conclusion that Congress
understood that a franchised ‘‘cable
system’’ would carry both cable and
non-cable services. The House Report,
for example, explains that ‘‘[t]he term
‘cable system’ is not limited to a facility
that provides only cable service which
includes video programming. Quite the
contrary, many cable systems provide a
wide variety of cable services and other
communications services as well. A
facility would be a cable system if it
were designed to include the provision
of cable services (including video
programming) along with
communications services other than
cable service.’’
88. The point is that Congress was
well aware that ‘‘cable systems’’ would
be used to carry a variety of cable and
non-cable services. It follows that
Congress could have, if it wanted,
provided significant leeway for states,
localities, and franchising authorities to
tax or provide other regulatory
restrictions on a cable system’s
provision of non-cable services in
exchange for the cable operator
receiving access to the rights-of-way.
But as it turns out, the balance of Title
VI makes clear that Congress sharply
circumscribed the authority of state or
local governments to regulate the terms
of this exchange. In this document, we
make clear that, under section 636(c),
states, localities, and franchising
authorities may not impose fees or
restrictions on cable operators for the
provision of non-cable services in
connection with access to such rightsof-way, except as expressly authorized
in the Act. We provide further
explanation in two critical areas to
clarify that these categories of state and
local restrictions are preempted: (a)
Additional franchise fees beyond those
authorized in section 622 and (b)
additional franchises or regulatory
restrictions on a cable operator’s
construction, management, or operation
of a cable system in the rights-of-way.
89. Additional fees. Both Congress
and the Commission have recognized
that the franchise fee is the core
consideration that franchising
authorities receive in exchange for the
E:\FR\FM\27AUR1.SGM
27AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
cable operator’s right to access and use
the rights-of-way. As explained in detail
above, Congress carefully circumscribed
how this fee should be calculated: It
provided 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’’. We must assume that
Congress’s careful choice of words was
intentional. While the fee would apply
to the ‘‘cable operator’’ with respect to
any ‘‘cable system,’’ it would only apply
to revenue obtained from ‘‘cable
services,’’ not non-cable services that
Congress understood could provide
additional sources of revenue.
90. We find additional support for
this conclusion in Congress’s broad
definition of the term ‘‘franchise fee,’’
which covers ‘‘any tax, fee, or
assessment of any kind imposed by a
franchising authority or other
governmental entity on a cable operator
or cable subscriber or both, solely
because of their status as such.’’ This
broad definition was intended to limit
the imposition of any tax, fee, or
assessment of any kind—including fees
purportedly for provision of non-cable
services or for, access to, use of, or the
value of the rights of way—to five
percent of the cable operator’s revenue
from cable services.99 And its language
reinforces the text of section 636(c) by
making clear that a different state or
local ‘‘governmental entity’’ cannot endrun the cap by imposing fees for access
to any public right of way within the
franchise area or in instances of
overlapping jurisdiction.
91. In reaching this conclusion, we
read the phrase ‘‘solely because of their
status as such’’ as protective language
intended to place a ceiling on any sort
of fee that a franchising authority might
impose on a cable operator qua cable
operator or qua franchisee—that is, any
fee assessed in exchange for the right to
construct, manage, or operate a cable
system in the rights-of-way. We
therefore reject the claim of some
commenters that this language permits
localities to charge additional fees so
long as the cable operator also acts as a
telecommunications provider or internet
service provider, or so long as the state
or locality can articulate some non-cable
99 State and local advocates do not appear to
dispute that section 622(b) limits franchise fees to
five percent of a cable operator’s gross revenues
derived from the provision of cable service only.
Rather, their claims, as discussed herein, are that
fees on broadband and telecommunications services
are not ‘‘franchise fees’’ at all—claims that we show
are belied by the text, structure, and purposes of
Title VI.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Aug 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
related rationale for its actions. This
alternate rationale flies in the face of
statutory text. As noted above, a ‘‘cable
operator’’ is defined not only as a
person or entity that provides cable
service, but also one that ‘‘controls or is
responsible for, through any
arrangement, the management and
operation of such a cable system.’’ The
management or operation of a cable
system includes the maintenance of the
system to provide non-cable services—
which Congress understood would be
supplied over the same cable
facilities.100 Because a fee that a state or
locality imposes on a cable operator’s
provision of non-cable services relates
to the ‘‘manage[ment] and operat[ion]’’
of its cable system, such fee is imposed
on the cable operator ‘‘solely because of
[its] status’’ as a cable operator and is
capped by section 622.
92. The structure of section 622 as a
whole provides further support for our
reading. The language ‘‘solely because
of their status as such’’ operates to
distinguish fees imposed on cable
operators for access to the rights-of-way
(‘‘franchise fees’’), which are capped,
from ‘‘any tax, fee, or assessment of
general applicability,’’ which are not.
Section 622 thus envisions two
mutually exclusive categories of
assessments—(1) fees imposed on cable
operators for access to the rights-of-way
in their capacity as franchisees (that is,
‘‘solely because of their status as such’’)
and (2) broad-based taxes. Understood
in this manner, any assessment on a
cable operator for constructing,
managing, or operating its cable system
in the rights-of-way is subject to the
five-percent cap—even if other noncable service providers (e.g.,
telecommunications or broadband
providers) are subject to the same or
similar access fees.101 This is because
100 As NCTA notes, a service provider may have
status as a cable operator either because of its
provision of cable service or because of its
operation of a cable system. A service provider that
is operating a cable system to provide broadband
internet access service thus is providing such
service ‘‘solely because of’’ its status as a cable
operator.
101 Although a ‘‘franchise fee’’ does not include
‘‘any tax, fee, or assessment of general
applicability,’’ we note that this exception excludes
a tax, fee, or assessment ‘‘which is unduly
discriminatory against cable operators or cable
subscribers.’’ Even if ‘‘telecommunications’’ fees
such as those at issue in Eugene could reasonably
be characterized as fees of general applicability by
virtue of their application to providers other than
cable operators, we find that such fees would be
‘‘unduly discriminatory’’—and thus constitute
‘‘franchise fees’’—as applied to franchised cable
operators. This is because such fees are assessed on
cable operators in addition to the five percent
franchise fees such operators must pay for use of
public rights-of-way. That is, cable operators must
pay twice for access to rights-of-way (i.e., one fee
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
44743
the definition of ‘‘franchise fee’’ in
section 622(g)(1) centers on why the fee
is imposed on a cable operator, i.e.,
‘‘solely because of [its] status’’ as a
franchisee, and not to whom the fee is
imposed, i.e., ‘‘solely applicable’’ to a
cable operator. The entire category of
‘‘franchise fees’’ is subject to the fivepercent cap, in distinction to generallyapplicable taxes whose validity must be
shown, at least in part, by their
application to broader classes of entities
or citizens beyond providers of cable
and non-cable communications
services.102
93. The legislative history and
purposes of the 1984 Cable Act support
this broad and exclusive interpretation
of the term ‘‘franchise fees.’’ It reveals,
for example, that Congress initially
established the section 622(b) cap on
franchise fees out of concern that local
authorities could use such fees as a
revenue-raising mechanism. A reading
of section 622 that would permit states
and localities to circumvent the five
percent cap by imposing unbounded
fees on ‘‘non-cable services’’ would
frustrate the Congressional purpose
behind the cap and effectively render it
meaningless. The legislative history
behind the 1996 amendments to section
622(b) make this intent explicit. Prior to
1996, section 622 provided, in relevant
part, that ‘‘the franchise fees paid by a
cable operator with respect to any cable
system shall not exceed [five percent] of
such cable operator’s gross revenues
derived . . . from the operation of the
cable system.’’ The House Report
accompanying the 1996 amendment,103
which explained the addition of the key
limitation ‘‘for the provision of cable
services’’ in section 622(b), provides
that:
Franchising authorities may collect
franchise fees under [section 622 of the Act]
solely on the basis of the revenues derived
by an operator from the provision of cable
service. . . . This section does not restrict the
right of franchising authorities to collect
franchise fees on revenues from cable
services and cable-related services, such as,
but not limited to, revenue from the
installation of cable service, equipment used
to receive cable service, advertising over
for cable service and a second fee for non-cable
service), whereas non-cable providers must pay
only once for such access (i.e., for non-cable
service). We, therefore, conclude that interpreting
the Act to preclude localities from assessing fees on
cable operators’ use of rights-of-way to provide noncable services would be ‘‘competitively neutral and
nondiscriminatory,’’ contrary to the suggestion of
some commenters.
102 We thus disagree with assertions that Congress
did not intend for franchise fees to cover cable
operators’ use of public property for the provision
of services other than cable services.
103 The conference agreement adopted the House
version of this provision.
E:\FR\FM\27AUR1.SGM
27AUR1
44744
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
video channels, compensation received from
video programmers, and other sources related
to the provision of cable service over the
cable system.
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
94. If, as CAPA asserts, Congress had
intended the term ‘‘cable operator’’ as
used in section 622(b) to refer to an
entity only to the extent such entity
provides cable service, there would
have been no need for Congress to
amend section 622(b) in this manner.
95. Although, as LFA advocates note,
section 621(d)(2) of the Act provides
that ‘‘[n]othing in [Title VI] shall be
construed to affect the authority of any
State to regulate any cable operator to
the extent that such operator provides
any communication service other than
cable service, whether offered on a
common carrier or private contract
basis,’’ this provision is not an
affirmative grant to states of authority to
regulate non-cable services that they
historically have not been empowered
to regulate. First, the term ‘‘State’’ in
section 621(d) does not extend to LFAs;
it is defined by reference to section 3 of
the Communications Act. The
legislative history makes clear that this
was a reference to the division of
regulatory authority between the ‘‘state
public utility commission and . . . the
FCC.’’ Second, this provision merely
reflects Congress’s intent in the 1984
Cable Act to preserve the status quo
with respect to federal and state
jurisdiction over non-cable services. As
noted, under the then-existing status
quo, the Commission had jurisdiction to
regulate interstate services; states had
jurisdiction to regulate intrastate
services. Because the Commission
historically has concluded that
information service is jurisdictionally
interstate, it traditionally has fallen
outside the proper regulatory sphere of
state and local authorities.104 Moreover,
the Commission has long recognized the
impossibility of separately regulating
interstate and intrastate information
services. Thus, neither a state nor its
political subdivisions may lawfully
regulate such service under section
104 For example, the Commission previously has
stated that it has independent authority to displace
state and local regulations in accordance with the
longstanding federal policy of nonregulation for
information services. For more than a decade prior
to the 1996 Act, the Commission consistently
preempted state regulation of information services
(which were then known as ‘‘enhanced services’’).
When Congress adopted the Commission’s
regulatory framework and its deregulatory approach
to information services in the 1996 Act, it thus
embraced its longstanding policy of preempting
state laws that interfere with our federal policy of
nonregulation. Because broadband internet access
service is jurisdictionally interstate whether
classified as a telecommunications or an
information service, regulatory authority over such
service resides exclusively with the Commission.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Aug 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
621(d)(2) by requiring a cable operator
with a Title VI franchise to pay a fee or
secure a franchise or other authorization
to provide broadband internet access
service over its cable system. To
conclude otherwise would contravene
Congress’s intent in Title VI to maintain
the jurisdictional status quo with
respect to federal, state, and local
regulation of non-cable services.105
96. We find unpersuasive NATOA et
al.’s selective reading of the legislative
history to conclude that Congress
intended to permit states and localities
to require franchised cable operators to
pay additional rights-of-way fees for the
provision of non-cable services. NATOA
et al. note that the House Conference
Report accompanying the 1996
amendment stated that ‘‘to the extent
permissible under state and local law,
communications services, including
those provided by a cable company,
shall be subject to the authority of a
local government to, in a
nondiscriminatory and competitively
neutral way, manage its public rights-ofway and charge fair and reasonable
fees.’’ Although the cited legislative
history is relevant to our interpretation
of the statute,106 we do not read this
language so broadly as permitting states
and localities to charge redundant or
duplicative fees on cable franchisees
that are subject to the five-percent cap—
a reading that would, as we have
explained, eviscerate the cap entirely.
Rather, we conclude that, under section
636(c), and taking into account the
provisions of Title VI as a whole, any
fees that exceed the five-percent cap, as
formulated in section 622, are not ‘‘fair
and reasonable.’’ 107
105 We also reject claims that section 621(d)(1)’s
grant to states of authority to require the filing of
tariffs by cable operators for the provision of certain
non-cable services reflects Congress’s intent to
permit state regulation of those services. As
explained above, that provision was intended only
to permit states to require tariffs for services that
they otherwise were authorized to regulate, such as
telecommunications services that are purely
intrastate.
106 As some LFA advocates note, the Commission
previously noted in passing that, while a cable
operator is not required to pay cable franchise fees
on revenues from non-cable services, this rule
‘‘does not apply to non-cable franchise fee
requirements, such as any lawful fees related to the
provision of telecommunications service.’’ For the
reasons explained below, we would deem an LFA’s
assessment of a cable operator twice for accessing
public rights-of-way (once as a cable operator and
again as a telecommunications provider) to be
unlawful as not ‘‘fair and reasonable’’ nor
‘‘competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory.’’ To
the extent our earlier statement may suggest any
broader application, we disavow it based on the
record before us and the arguments made
throughout this item.
107 We disagree with LFA assertions that this
interpretation is inconsistent with section 253 of
the Act and the Commission’s 2018 Wireless
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
97. Consistent with Congress’s intent,
as early as 2002, the Commission has
construed section 622(b) to permit
franchising authorities to include in the
revenue base for franchise fee
calculations only those revenues
derived from the provision of cable
service.108 Thus, if a cable operator
generates additional revenue by
providing non-cable services over its
cable system, such additional revenue
may not be included in the gross
revenues for purposes of calculating the
cable franchise fee.109
98. As courts have recognized, the
Commission is charged with ‘‘the
ultimate responsibility for ensuring a
‘national policy’ with respect to
franchise fees.’’ We exercise that
authority in this document by making
clear that states, localities, and cable
franchising authorities are preempted
from charging franchised cable
operators more than five percent of their
gross revenue from cable services. This
cap applies to any attempt to impose a
‘‘tax, fee, or assessment of any kind’’
that is not subject to one of the
enumerated exemptions in section
622(g)(2) on a cable operator’s non-cable
Infrastructure Order. Although section 253 permits
states and localities to require ‘‘fair and reasonable’’
compensation from telecommunications providers
on a ‘‘competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory
basis’’ for use of public rights-of-way, as explained
above, we find that imposing fees on cable
operators beyond what Title VI allows is neither
‘‘fair and reasonable’’ nor ‘‘competitively neutral
and nondiscriminatory.’’ Moreover, although the
Commission in the Wireless Infrastructure Order
concluded, among other things, that fees to use the
rights-of-way to deploy small cells for the provision
of telecommunications must be cost-based and no
greater than those charged to ‘‘similarly situated’’
entities for comparable uses of the rights-of-way, we
do not believe that our approach in this document
introduces any inconsistency. Rather, as NCTA
notes, we merely recognize that under the Act,
cable operators must compensate local governments
for accessing public rights-of-way under a statutory
framework different from that applicable to
telecommunications providers, and that Congress
did not intend for them to be assessed twice for the
provision of cable service or the facilities used in
the provision of such service. Any difference in
approach, therefore, follows from different
standards established by Congress in sections II and
VI of the Act.
108 In the Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling, for
example, the Commission stated that under section
622(b) the franchise fees paid by a cable operator
with respect to any cable system may not exceed
five percent of the cable operator’s gross revenues
derived from the operation of the cable system to
provide cable services. Because cable modem
service was then deemed to be an information
service, the Commission concluded that revenue
from cable modem service would not be included
in the calculation of gross revenues from which the
franchise fee ceiling is determined.
109 In the First Report and Order, the Commission
affirmed its prior interpretation of section 622(b) by
clarifying that a cable operator is not required to
pay franchise fees on revenues from non-cable
services. Thus, internet access services, including
broadband data services, and any other non-cable
services are not subject to ‘cable services’ fees.
E:\FR\FM\27AUR1.SGM
27AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
services or its ability to construct,
manage, or operate its cable system in
the rights-of-way.
99. Additional Franchises or Other
Requirements. Congress also made clear
that states, localities, and franchising
authorities lack authority to require
additional franchises or place additional
nonmonetary conditions on a cable
operator’s provision of non-cable
services that are not expressly
authorized in the Act. Several
provisions state explicitly that
franchising authorities may not regulate
franchised ‘‘cable systems’’ to the extent
that they provide telecommunications
services. In addition, as we noted above,
section 624(b)(1) precludes franchising
authorities from ‘‘establish[ing]
requirements for video programming or
other information services.’’ In the
mixed-use rule we adopt in this
document, we reasonably construed this
provision to prohibit LFAs from
regulating information services
provided over cable systems.
100. As noted above, section 636(c)
operates to preempt state and local
requirements that would use non-Title
VI authority to accomplish indirectly
what franchising authorities are
prohibited from doing directly.
Consistent with this reasoning, we
conclude that any state or local law or
legal requirement that obligates a cable
operator franchised under Title VI to
obtain a separate, additional franchise
(or other authorization) or imposes
requirements beyond those permitted by
Title VI to provide cable or non-cable
services, including telecommunications
and information services, over its cable
system conflicts with the Act and thus
also is expressly preempted by section
636(c). The mixed-use rule we adopt in
this document represents a reasonable
interpretation of the relevant provisions
of Title VI as well as a balanced
accommodation of the various policy
interests that Congress entrusted to the
Commission; therefore, it too has
preemptive effect under section
636(c).110
101. Public Policy. Apart from our
analysis of the text and structure of the
110 We reject arguments that the Commission
lacks authority to preempt state and local regulation
of information services without asserting ancillary
jurisdiction over information services. Because we
are relying on express preemption authority under
section 636(c), there is no reason for us to rely upon
ancillary authority in this proceeding.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Aug 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
Act and our longstanding delegated
authority to preempt state regulations
that are inconsistent with the Act, our
preemption decisions in this document
are also consistent with Congress’s and
the Commission’s public policy goals
and an appropriate response to
problems that are apparent in the
record.
102. Recognizing that excessive
regulation at the local level could limit
the potential of cable systems to deliver
a broad array of services, Congress
expressed its intent to ‘‘minimize
unnecessary regulation that would
impose an undue economic burden on
cable systems’’ and ‘‘assure that cable
communications provide and are
encouraged to provide the widest
possible diversity of information
sources and services to the public.’’
More generally, section 230(b) of the Act
expresses Congress’s intent ‘‘to preserve
the vibrant and competitive free market
that presently exists for the internet and
other interactive computer services,
unfettered by Federal or State
regulation.’’ 111 Accordingly, the
Commission has previously preempted
state and local regulations that would
conflict with this federal policy of
nonregulation of information services.
These longstanding federal policies
provide further support for our decision
in this document to read Title VI as
prohibiting states, localities, and
franchising authorities from imposing
fees and obligations on cable operators
beyond those expressly set forth in that
Title.
103. Our preemption decision in this
document will advance these federal
policies by preventing further abuses of
state and local authorities of the kind
manifested in the record in this
proceeding. In recent years,
governmental entities at the local level
increasingly have sought to regulate
non-cable services provided over mixeduse cable systems franchised under Title
VI, particularly broadband internet
access service. Such governmental
entities have included not only state
and local franchising authorities acting
pursuant to the cable franchising
provisions of Title VI, but also state and
111 ‘‘Interactive computer services’’ are defined, in
relevant part, as ‘‘any information service, system,
or access software provider that provides or enables
computer access by multiple users to a computer
service, including specifically a service or system
that provides access to the Internet. . . .’’
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
44745
local entities purportedly acting
pursuant to their police powers to
regulate public rights-of-way or other
powers derived from sources outside
Title VI. Although the record reveals
that such regulation takes many
different forms, NCTA and other
industry advocates have expressed acute
concerns about two particular kinds of
state and local regulation: (1)
Requirements obligating cable operators
with a Title VI franchise that are subject
to the franchise fee requirement in
section 622(b) of the Act to pay
additional fees for the provision of noncable services (such as broadband
internet access) via their cable systems;
and (2) requirements obligating cable
operators with a Title VI franchise to
secure an additional franchise (or other
authorization) to provide non-cable
services over their cable systems. Our
preemption decisions in this document
are carefully tailored to address these
problems and prevent states and
localities from continuing to circumvent
the carefully calibrated terms of Title VI
through these and similar kinds of
regulations.
104. We disagree with those
commenters who attempt to minimize
the harm posed by the state and local
requirements that we preempt in this
document. We disagree, for example,
that cable industry claims regarding the
impact of duplicative fee and franchise
requirements on broadband deployment
are belied by the industry’s substantial
investments to date in broadband
infrastructure, and that such
requirements thus will not adversely
affect broadband investment going
forward. As the record reflects, even if
cable operators were to continue to
invest, such investments likely would
be higher absent such requirements, and
even small decreases in investment can
have a substantial adverse impact on
consumer welfare. We also are
persuaded that the imposition of
duplicative requirements may deter
investment in new infrastructure and
services irrespective of whether or to
what extent a cable operator passes on
those costs to consumers. Contrary to
the assertions of some commenters, we
also believe that such requirements
impede Congress’s goal to accelerate
deployment of ‘‘advanced
telecommunications capability to all
Americans.’’
E:\FR\FM\27AUR1.SGM
27AUR1
44746
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
105. Other Legal Considerations. In
reaching our decision in this document,
we agree with the majority of courts that
have found that a Title VI franchise
authorizes a cable operator to provide
non-cable services without additional
franchises or fee payments to state or
local authorities. In so doing, we
repudiate the reasoning in a 2016
decision by the Supreme Court of
Oregon in City of Eugene v.
Comcast,112which appears to have
prompted an increasing number of
states and municipalities to impose fees
on franchised cable operators’ provision
of non-cable services.113 In Eugene, the
court upheld the city’s imposition of a
separate, additional
‘‘telecommunications’’ license fee on
the provision of broadband services over
a franchised cable system, reasoning
that the fee was not imposed pursuant
to the city’s Title VI cable franchising
authority, but rather, under the city’s
authority as a local government to
impose fees for access to rights-of-way
for the provision of telecommunications
services. For the reasons stated above,
we conclude that Eugene fundamentally
misreads the text, structure, and
legislative history of the Act, and clarify
that any state or local regulation that
imposes on a cable operator fees for the
provision of non-cable services over a
cable system franchised under Title VI
conflicts with section 622(b) of the Act
and is preempted under section
636(c).114
106. As noted above, although
sections 602(7)(C) and 624(b)(1) by their
112 The regulations at issue in Eugene included
that: (i) Comcast’s franchise agreement for the
provision of cable services over the city’s public
rights-of-way did not give it the right to provide
cable modem service over those rights-of-way; (ii)
the Communications Act did not give Comcast an
independent right to provide cable modem service
over the city’s public rights-of-way; (iii) the Act did
not preclude the city from assessing fees on
revenues derived from Comcast’s provision of cable
modem service over public rights-of-way; and (iv)
such fees did not constitute franchise fees under
section 622(b) of the Act.
113 NCTA asserts that in the wake of Eugene, a
multitude of cities in Oregon have adopted or
reinterpreted ordinances to impose fees on gross
revenues derived from the provision of broadband
services, in addition to those already imposed
under cable franchises. NCTA notes that multiple
communities in Ohio also have passed ordinances
requiring that cable operators secure a ‘‘Certificate
of Registration’’ in addition to a state-issued cable
franchise before offering non-cable services, and
that such certificates require payment of additional
fees as a condition of occupying rights-of-way.
NCTA asserts further that such duplicative fees are
imposed not only at the local level, but also at the
state level.
114 Such regulation includes not only
requirements imposed by a state or locality acting
pursuant to the cable franchising provisions of Title
VI, but also requirements imposed by a state or
locality purportedly acting pursuant to any powers
granted outside Title VI.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Aug 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
terms circumscribe franchising
authority regulation of non-cable
services pursuant to Title VI, section
636(c) makes clear that state and local
authorities may not end-run the
provisions of Title VI simply by
asserting some other source of
authority—such as their police powers
to regulate access to public rights-ofway—to accomplish what Title VI
prohibits. To be sure, section 636(a)
provides that ‘‘[n]othing in [Title VI]
shall be construed to affect any
authority of any State, political
subdivision, or agency thereof, or
franchising authority, regarding matters
of public health, safety, and welfare, to
the extent consistent with the express
provisions of [Title VI].’’ While we
recognize that states and municipalities
possess authority to manage rights-ofway that is distinct from their cable
franchising authority under Title VI,
states and localities may not exercise
that authority in a manner that conflicts
with federal law. As the U.S. Supreme
Court has found, ‘‘[w]hen federal
officials determine, as the FCC has here,
that restrictive regulation of a particular
area is not in the public interest, [s]tates
are not permitted to use their police
power to enact such . . . regulation.’’
107. Our decision in this document
still leaves meaningful room for states to
exercise their traditional police powers
under section 636(a).115 While we do
not have occasion in this document to
delineate all the categories of state and
local rules saved by that provision, we
note that states and localities under
section 636(a) may lawfully engage in
rights-of-way management (e.g., road
closures necessitated by cable plant
installation, enforcement of building
and electrical codes) so long as such
regulation otherwise is consistent with
Title VI. Similarly, we do not preempt
state regulation of telecommunications
services that are purely intrastate, such
as requirements that a cable operator
obtain a certificate of public
convenience and necessity to provide
such services. State regulation of
intrastate telecommunications services
is permissible so long as it is consistent
with the Act and the Commission’s
implementing rules and policies.116 We
also do not disturb or displace the
traditional role of states in generally
115 Given the robust scope that we retain in this
Order for the operation of section 636(a), we reject
the City of Eugene’s assertion that we have not
engaged in ‘‘meaningful discussion’’ of this
provision.
116 We note, for example, that section 253(a) of
the Act prohibits state or local statutes, regulations,
or other legal requirements that prohibit or have the
effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to
provide ‘‘any interstate or intrastate
telecommunications service.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
policing such matters as fraud, taxation,
and general commercial dealings, so
long as the administration of such laws
does not interfere with federal
regulatory objectives.
108. We also find unconvincing Anne
Arundel County et al.’s argument that
the Commission’s preemption of state
and local management of public rightsof-way violates the Tenth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution by ‘‘direct[ing]
local governments to surrender their
property and management rights to
generate additional funds for use in the
expanded deployment of broadband.’’ In
particular, Anne Arundel County et al.
contends that by preventing states and
localities from overseeing use of their
rights-of-way, the Commission
effectively is commanding them to grant
rights-of-way access on terms
established by the Commission, rather
than state or local governments. That
argument fails for multiple reasons.
109. The Tenth Amendment provides
that ‘‘[t]he powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.’’ We find that Anne Arundel
County et al. has failed to demonstrate
any violation of the Tenth Amendment.
As the Supreme Court has stated, ‘‘[i]f
a power is delegated to Congress in the
Constitution, the Tenth Amendment
expressly disclaims any reservation of
that power to the States.’’ Therefore,
when Congress acts within the scope of
its authority under the Commerce
Clause, no Tenth Amendment issue
arises. Regulation of interstate
telecommunications and information
services, and cable services, is within
Congress’ authority under the
Commerce Clause. Thus, because our
authority derives from a proper exercise
of Congressional power, the Tenth
Amendment poses no obstacle to our
preemption of state and local laws and
other legal requirements.
110. We also find no merit to
arguments that the Commission’s
preemption of certain state and local
requirements constitutes an improper
‘‘commandeering’’ of state governmental
power. The Supreme Court has
recognized that ‘‘where Congress has the
authority to regulate private activity
under the Commerce Clause,’’ Congress
has the ‘‘power to offer States the choice
of regulating that activity according to
federal standards or having state law
preempted by federal regulation.’’ Title
VI provides that a franchising authority
‘‘may award’’ franchises ‘‘in accordance
with this title.’’ It thus simply
establishes limitations on the scope of
that authority when and if exercised.
Here, we are simply requiring that,
E:\FR\FM\27AUR1.SGM
27AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
should state and local governments
decide to open their rights-of-way to
providers of interstate communication
services within the Commission’s
jurisdiction, they do so in accordance
with federal standards. As noted,
Congress in section 636(c) expressly
authorized Commission preemption of
state and local laws and other legal
requirements that conflict with federal
standards. Because the Commission has
the constitutional authority to adopt
such standards, and because those
standards do not require that state or
local governments take or decline to
take any particular action, we conclude
that our preemption decisions in this
Order do not violate the Tenth
Amendment.117
111. As proposed in the Second
FNPRM, we find that the conclusions
set forth in this Order, as well as the
Commission’s decisions in the First
Report and Order 118 and Second Report
and Order,119 as clarified in the Order
117 We also conclude that our actions do not
violate the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. The ‘‘takings’’ clause of the Fifth
Amendment provides: ‘‘[N]or shall private property
be taken for public use, without just
compensation.’’ First, our actions herein do not
result in a Fifth Amendment taking. Courts have
held that municipalities generally do not have a
compensable ‘‘ownership’’ interest in public rightsof-way, but rather hold the public streets and
sidewalks in trust for the public. Moreover, even if
there was a taking, Congress provided for ‘‘just
compensation’’ through cable franchise fees.
Section 622(h)(2) of the Act provides that a
franchising authority may recover a franchise fee of
up to five percent of a cable operator’s annual gross
revenues derived from the provision of cable
service. Congress intended that the cable franchise
fee serve as the consideration given in exchange for
a cable operator’s right to use public rights-of-way.
Our actions herein do not eviscerate the ability of
local authorities to impose such franchise fees.
Rather, our actions simply ensure that local
authorities do not impose duplicative fees for the
same use of rights-of-way by mixed use facilities of
cable operators, contrary to express statutory
provisions and policy goals set forth in the Act.
118 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.
119 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Aug 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
44747
on Reconsideration, apply 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 declined to
‘‘address the reasonableness of demands
made by state level franchising
authorities’’ or to extend the ‘‘findings
and regulations’’ adopted in its section
621 orders to actions taken at the state
level. It noted that many state
franchising laws had only been in effect
for a short time and that the
Commission lacked a sufficient record
regarding their effect. In the Order on
Reconsideration, the Commission
indicated that if any interested parties
believed the Commission should revisit
the issue in the future, they could
present the Commission with evidence
that the findings in the First Report and
Order and Second Report and Order
‘‘are of practical relevance to the
franchising process at the state-level and
therefore should be applied or extended
accordingly.’’
112. In the Second FNPRM, we again
asked whether the Commission should
apply the decisions in this proceeding
to franchising actions and regulations
taken at the state level. As we noted,
more than ten years have passed since
the Commission first considered
whether to apply its decisions
interpreting section 621 to state-level
franchising actions and state
regulations. The decade of experience
with the state-franchising process, along
with comments responding to the
questions related to this issue raised in
the Second FNPRM, provide us with an
adequate record regarding the effect of
state involvement in the franchising
process.
113. We now find that the better
reading of the Cable Act’s text and
purpose is that that the rules and
decisions adopted in this Order, as well
as those adopted in the First Report and
Order and Second Report and Order,
should fully apply to state-level
franchising actions and regulations.
First, we see no statutory basis for
distinguishing between state- and locallevel franchising actions. Nor do we
think such a distinction would further
Congress’s goals: Unreasonable
demands by state-level franchising
authorities can impede competition and
investment just as unreasonable
demands by local authorities can. While
we need not opine on the
reasonableness of specific state actions
raised by commenters, we find that
there is evidence in the record that state
franchising actions—alone or
cumulatively with local franchising
actions—in some cases impose burdens
beyond what the Cable Act allows. We
see no reason—statutory or otherwise—
why the Cable Act would prohibit these
actions at the local level but permit
them at the state level.
114. The Cable Act does not
distinguish between state and local
franchising authorities. Section 621(a)
and the other cable franchising
provisions of Title VI circumscribe the
power of ‘‘franchising authorities’’ to
regulate services provided over cable
systems. The Cable Act defines
‘‘franchising authority’’ as ‘‘any
governmental entity empowered by
Federal, State or local law to grant a
franchise.’’ In other words, the
provisions of Title VI that apply to
‘‘franchising authorities’’ apply equally
to any entity ‘‘empowered by . . .
law’’—including state law—‘‘to grant a
franchise.’’ Many states have left
franchising to local authorities, making
those authorities subject to the limits
imposed under Title VI. Twenty-three
states, however, have empowered a
state-level entity, such as a state public
utility commission, to grant cable
franchise authorizations, rendering
them ‘‘franchising authorities’’ under
Title VI. Bolstering the conclusion that
Congress intended the Cable Act to
govern state-level action is section 636
of the Cable Act, which expressly
preempts ‘‘any provision of law of any
State, political subdivision, or agency
thereof, or franchising authority, or any
provision of any franchise granted by
such authority’’ that conflicts with the
Cable Act.120 Limiting the Commission’s
rulings to local-level action would call
for some plausible interpretation of
these provisions; those opposing the
extension of the Commission’s rulings
to state franchising authorities offer
none. Accordingly, we find that the
Cable Act does not distinguish between
state- and local-level franchising
actions, and that the Commission’s
rulings should therefore apply equally
to both.
115. In addition, we find unavailing
claims in the record that the
Commission should limit its decisions
to local authorities for policy reasons.
To the contrary, we find that extending
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.
120 As we explain above, this preemption does not
extend to state regulation of intrastate
telecommunications services or regulation related
to matters of public health, safety, and welfare that
otherwise is consistent with the Act, and nothing
in this Order is intended to disturb the traditional
role that states have played in these regards.
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\27AUR1.SGM
27AUR1
44748
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
the Commission’s rulings to state level
franchising actions and regulations
furthers the goals of the Cable Act.
Unreasonable barriers to entry imposed
by any franchising authority—state or
local—frustrate the goals of competition
and deployment. In the First Report and
Order, we found that removing
regulatory obstacles posed by local
franchising authorities would further
these goals. We now find that this
policy rationale applies with equal force
to franchising actions taken at the state
level.
116. We disagree that extending the
Commission’s rulings to state-level
franchising and regulation, however,
will eliminate the benefits of state-level
action. We are not persuaded that
extending the Commission’s rulings to
state-level actions would prevent—or
even discourage—state-level franchising
and regulation. Indeed, applying the
Commission’s rulings to state-level
action will merely ensure that the same
rules that apply to LFAs also apply at
the state level.121 This consistency is
itself beneficial, ensuring that various
statutory provisions—such as sections
621 and 622—are interpreted uniformly
throughout the country. As one
commenter notes, ‘‘state-level cable
regulations may be modeled on the
federal act, and so, allowing disparate
interpretations of the same language
could lead to confusion among
consumers, regulators, and franchisees.’’
117. Nor should applying our
interpretations of the Cable Act to statelevel actions interfere with states’
authority to enact general taxes and
regulations. Some commenters express
concern that the Commission’s rulings
would disturb state franchising laws
that apply more broadly than the Cable
Act.122 While we decline here to opine
121 For these reasons, we disagree with
commenters who argue that applying the
Commission’s rules at the state level is contrary to
the Cable Act’s purpose of ‘‘assur[ing] that cable
systems are responsive to the needs and interests
of the local community.’’ The City of Philadelphia,
for example, argues that extending the
Commission’s rules to state-level actions would
‘‘unduly restrict state and local governments from
addressing local and hyperlocal cable-related
issues.’’ For the reasons discussed above, we are not
convinced that applying our rules to state
franchising authorities will impede the ability of
state and local authorities to address local issues.
Rather, by doing so, we ensure that the goals of the
Cable Act, as determined by Congress, including
‘‘encourag[ing] the growth and development of
cable systems,’’ are fully realized.
122 For example, California’s Digital Infrastructure
and Video Competition Act (DIVCA) assesses an
annual administrative fee and authorizes LFAs to
assess on both cable operators and non-cable video
franchise holders, up to a one-percent fee on gross
revenues for PEG, in addition to a state franchise
fee of five percent of gross revenues. The Eastern
District of California found that DIVCA was a law
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Aug 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
on the application of the Cable Act to
specific state laws, we note that these
concerns are largely settled by section
622, which excludes ‘‘any tax, fee, or
assessment of general applicability’’
from the definition of franchise fees.
Other provisions of the Act similarly
make clear that the Act does not affect
state authority regarding matters of
public health, safety, and welfare, to the
extent that states exercise that authority
consistent with the express provisions
of the Cable Act.
118. Finally, some commenters assert
that extending the Commission’s rulings
to state-level actions would ‘‘upend
carefully balanced policy decisions by
the states.’’ 123 According to
commenters, local governments might
wish to refuse these benefits if they
come at the expense of franchise fees—
but they will be unable to do so where
they are mandated by state law.124
119. We are not convinced that these
concerns justify limiting the
Commission’s rulings to local-level
actions. Again, our conclusion in this
section will disturb existing state laws
only to the extent that they conflict with
the Cable Act and the Commission’s
rulings implementing the Act. While
this may upset some preexisting
legislative compromises, it will also root
out state laws that impose demands and
conditions that Congress and the
Commission have found to be
unreasonable. Further, ensuring that the
Cable Act is applied uniformly between
state and local franchising authorities is
necessary to further the goals of the Act,
and more importantly, is consistent
with the language of the Act. As some
commenters have noted, if the
Commission does not apply these
requirements to state franchises, states
could pass laws circumventing the
Cable Act’s limitations on LFAs. That
result would thwart Congress’s intent in
imposing those limitations. For these
reasons, we conclude that the benefits of
extending the Commission’s rulings and
interpretations to state-level actions
outweigh any burdens caused by
upsetting existing state-level policy
decisions.
of ‘‘general applicability’’ for the purposes of
section 622 in Comcast of Sacramento.
123 In Illinois, for example, state law requires that
cable operators provide ‘‘line drops and free basic
service to public buildings.’’ The Illinois statute
defines a ‘‘service line drop’’ as ‘‘the point of
connection between a premises and the cable or
video network that enables the premises to receive
cable service or video service.’’
124 Similarly, one commenter claims that DIVCA
reflected a legislative compromise between cable
operators and franchising authorities that would be
upset if the Commission’s rules were extended to
state level actions.
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
120. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the
Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in this proceeding. The
Commission sought written public
comment on the proposals in the
Second FNPRM, including comment on
the IRFA. The Commission received one
comment on the IRFA. This Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
conforms to the RFA.
121. In the Report and Order, we
interpret sections of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended that govern how local
franchising authorities may regulate
cable operators and cable television
services, with specific focus on issues
remanded from the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Sixth
Circuit) in Montgomery County, Md. et
al. v. FCC (Montgomery County). The
Order seeks to explain and establish the
statutory basis for the Commission’s
interpretation of the Act in order to
better fulfill the Commission’s goals of
eliminating regulatory obstacles in the
marketplace for cable services and
encouraging broadband investment and
deployment by cable operators.
122. In the Order, we first conclude
that cable-related, ‘‘in-kind’’
contributions required by a cable
franchise agreement are franchise fees
subject to the statutory five percent cap
on franchise fees set forth in section 622
of the Act. We base this conclusion on
the broad definition of franchise fee in
section 622, which is not limited to
monetary contributions. We interpret
the Act’s limited exceptions to the
definition of franchise fee, including an
exemption for capital costs related to
public, educational, and governmental
access (PEG) channels, such as
equipment costs or those associated
with building a facility. We also reaffirm
that this rule applies to both new
entrants and incumbent cable operators.
Second, we conclude that under the
Act, LFAs may not regulate the
provision of most non-cable services,
including broadband internet access
service, offered over a cable system by
an incumbent cable operator that is not
a common carrier. Finally, we conclude
that Commission guidance concerning
LFAs’ regulation of cable operators
should apply to state-level franchising
actions and regulations that impose
requirements on local franchising.
123. The Order is authorized pursuant
to sections 1, 4(i), 201(b), 230, 303, 602,
621, 622, 624, and 636 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201,
230, 303, 522, 541, 542, 544, and 556.
E:\FR\FM\27AUR1.SGM
27AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
The types of small entities that may be
affected by the Order fall within the
following categories: small businesses,
small organizations, small governmental
jurisdictions; wired telecommunications
carriers; cable companies and systems;
cable system operators; and open video
services.
124. Only one commenter, the City of
Newton Massachusetts, submitted a
comment that specifically responded to
the IRFA.125 The City of Newton
suggests that a transition period of at
least six years is needed to satisfy the
Commission’s Regulatory Flexibility Act
obligation to minimize significant
financial impacts on small communities
and non-profit organizations. The City
of Newton argues that this transition
period is needed to allow time for
affected parties to: (1) Identify cablerelated in kind contributions which
count against the franchise fee cap; (2)
reach agreement on the valuation of
cable-related in-kind contributions; (3)
resolve any disputes with respect to
those issues; and (4) adjust their
contractual commitments in light of any
prospective reduction in franchise fee
revenues (and the timing of those
reductions).
125. The rules adopted in the Order
will impose no additional reporting or
recordkeeping requirements. We expect
the compliance requirements—namely,
modifying and renewing cable franchise
agreements to comport with the law—
will have only a de minimis effect on
small entities. As ACA explains, ‘‘most
franchising authorities understand the
limits of their authority and do not
impose unlawful requirements on [small
cable operators].’’ 126 LFAs will
continue to review and make decisions
on applications for cable franchises as
they already do, and any modifications
to the local franchising process resulting
from these rules will further streamline
that process. The rules will 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. The rules
will also 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. The same can be said of
franchising at the state level. The rules
will help streamline the franchising
process by ensuring that applicable
statutory provisions are interpreted
uniformly throughout the country.
126. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant alternatives 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.’’ 127
127. To the extent that these rules are
matters of statutory interpretation, we
find that the adopted rules are
statutorily mandated and therefore no
meaningful alternatives exist.128
Moreover, as noted above, the rules are
expected to have only a de minimis
effect on small entities. The rules will
also streamline the local franchising
process by providing additional
guidance to LFAs.
128. Treating cable-related, in-kind
contributions as ‘‘franchise fees’’ subject
to the statutory five percent franchise
fee cap will 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 will help to ensure that
local franchising requirements do not
deter small cable operators from
investing in new services and facilities.
Similarly, applying these rules at the
state level helps to ensure that such
deterrence does not come from statelevel franchising requirements either.
Finally, applying the Commission’s
mixed-use rule to all incumbent cable
operators helps to ensure that all small
127 5
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
125 Letter
from Ruthanne Fuller, Mayor and
Issuing Authority, and Alan D. Mandl, Assistant
City Solicitor, City of Newton, Massachusetts, to
Chairman Pai and Commissioners Carr, O’Rielly
and Rosenworcel, FCC, MB Docket No. 05–311, at
7 (filed Nov. 14, 2018) (City of Newton Letter); City
of Newton Comments at 3–4.
126 Letter from Ross Lieberman, Senior Vice
President, Government Affairs ACA Connects—
America’s Communications Association, to Marlene
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 1 (July 25, 2019).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:42 Aug 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
U.S.C. 603(c)(1) through (4).
this reason, we disagree with NATOA et
al. that our actions will affect service to senior
citizens, or to schools, libraries, and other public
buildings and that this analysis is inadequate. See
Letter from Joseph Van Eaton et al., Counsel to
Anne Arundel County, et al. to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC at 2 (July 24, 2019). This argument
is essentially that the statutory cap does not afford
local governments enough money to serve their
constituents, and we do not have the authority to
amend the statute.
128 For
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
44749
cable operators may compete on a level
playing field because incumbent cable
operators will now be subject to the
same rule that applies to competitive
cable operators. We disagree with the
City of Newton’s argument that we
should afford small entities six years to
implement these changes—the issues
that City of Newton raises are matters of
statutory interpretation, and the
Communications Act does not provide
for the implementation period that the
City of Newton requests.
129. This document does not contain
new or revised information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–
13 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). In addition,
therefore, it does not contain any new
or modified ‘‘information burden for
small business concerns with fewer than
25 employees’’ pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107–198, 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4).
130. Accordingly, it is ordered that,
pursuant to the authority found in
sections 1, 4(i), 201(b), 230, 303, 602,
621, 622, 624, and 636 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201(b),
230, 303, 522, 541, 542, 544, and 556,
this Third Report and Order is adopted.
It is further ordered that the
Commission’s rules are hereby amended
and such rule amendments shall be
effective 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register. It is further ordered
that the Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Third Report and Order, including
the Final Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration. It is further ordered
that, pursuant to section 801(a)(1)(A) of
the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A), the Commission shall send
a copy of the Third Report and Order to
Congress and the Government
Accountability Office.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76
Cable television, Communications,
internet, Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends part 76 of title 47
of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
as set forth below:
E:\FR\FM\27AUR1.SGM
27AUR1
44750
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 27, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
PART 76—MULTICHANNEL VIDEO
AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
1. The authority citation for part 76
continues to read as follows:
48 CFR Parts 501, 507, 515, 538, and
552
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154,
201, 230, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 303a, 307, 308,
309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 338, 339, 340, 341,
503, 521, 522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537,
541, 542, 543, 544, 544a, 545, 548, 549, 552,
554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572, 573.
2. Revise subpart C heading to read as
follows:
■
Subpart C—Cable Franchising
■
3. Add § 76.42 to read as follows:
§ 76.42
[GSAR Case 2016–G506; Docket GSA–
GSAR–2019–0009; Sequence 1]
RIN 3090–AJ483
General Services Administration
Acquisition Regulation (GSAR);
Updates to the Issuance of GSA’s
Acquisition Policy; Correction
Office of Acquisition Policy,
General Services Administration.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
AGENCY:
GSA is issuing a correction to
GSAR Case 2016–G506; Updates to the
Issuance of GSA’s Acquisition Policy,
which was published in the Federal
Register on July 16, 2019. This
correction amends the heading of the
document.
SUMMARY:
In-kind contributions.
(a) In-kind, cable-related
contributions are ‘‘franchise fees’’
subject to the five percent cap set forth
in 47 U.S.C. 542(b). Such contributions,
which count toward the five percent cap
at their fair market value, include any
non-monetary contributions related to
the provision of cable service by a cable
operator as a condition or requirement
of a local franchise, including but not
limited to:
(1) Costs attributable to the provision
of free or discounted cable service to
public buildings, including buildings
leased by or under control of the
franchising authority;
(2) Costs in support of public,
educational, or governmental access
facilities, with the exception of capital
costs; and
(3) Costs attributable to the
construction of institutional networks.
(b) In-kind, cable-related
contributions do not include the costs of
complying with build-out and customer
service requirements.
DATES:
Effective: August 27, 2019.
Mr.
Thomas O’Linn, Procurement Analyst,
at 202–445–0390, for clarification of
content. For information pertaining to
status or publication schedules, contact
the Regulatory Secretariat Division at
202–501–4755. Please cite GSAR Case
2016–G509—Updates to the Issuance of
GSA’s Acquisition Policy. Corrections.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Correction
In rule FR Doc. 2019–15056,
published in the Federal Register at 84
FR 33858, on July 16, 2019, on page
33858, in the third column, in the
docket number in the document
heading, remove ‘‘GSAR Change 102’’.
Jeffrey A. Koses,
Senior Procurement Executive, Office of
Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019–18408 Filed 8–26–19; 8:45 am]
■
4. Add § 76.43 to read as follows:
§ 76.43
BILLING CODE 6820–61–P
Mixed-use rule.
A franchising authority may not
regulate the provision of any services
other than cable services offered over
the cable system of a cable operator,
with the exception of channel capacity
on institutional networks.
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
[FR Doc. 2019–18230 Filed 8–26–19; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
48 CFR Part 970
RIN 1991–AC14
Inclusion of Early Stage Technology
Demonstration in Authorized
Technology Transfer Activities
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
Office of Management,
Department of Energy.
ACTION: Final rule; technical
amendments.
AGENCY:
The Department of Energy
(DOE) is publishing this final rule to
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Aug 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
amend its current acquisition
regulations regarding allowability of
costs associated with technology
transfer activities pursuant to the
Stevenson-Wydler Technology
Innovation Act of 1980, as amended.
The content of these technical
amendments correspond with the
provisions enacted by Congress through
the Department of Energy Research and
Innovation Act.
DATES: This rule is effective August 27,
2019.
ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes
Federal Register notices and other
supporting documents/materials, is
available for review at https://
www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index.
A link to the docket web page can be
found at https://www.regulations.gov.
The docket web page will contain
simple instructions on how to assess all
documents, including public comments,
in the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Jason Taylor, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Management, at (202)–
287–1560 or by email at Jason.Taylor@
hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Summary of This Action
III. Final Action
IV. Procedural Requirements
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Background
Section 102 of the Department of
Energy Research and Innovation Act,
Public Law 115–246 (Research and
Innovation Act), amended section 1001
of EPACT 2005, 42 U.S.C. 16391 to
require DOE to permit specified
National Laboratories owned by DOE to
use funds authorized to support
technology transfer within DOE to carry
out early stage and precommercial
technology demonstration activities to
remove technology barriers that limit
private sector interest and demonstrate
potential commercial applications of
any research and technologies arising
from National Laboratory activities.
The Technology Transfer Mission
clause at 48 CFR 970.5227–3 (paragraph
(c)(1)) currently limits the use of funds
used to support Office of Research and
Technology Applications (ORTAs) to
three categories: (1) Obtaining,
maintaining, licensing, and assigning
Intellectual Property rights; (2)
increasing the potential for the transfer
of technology; and (3) providing
widespread notice of technology
E:\FR\FM\27AUR1.SGM
27AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 27, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44725-44750]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18230]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[MB Docket No. 05-311; FCC 19-80]
Local Franchising Authorities' Regulation of Cable Operators and
Cable Television Services
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) adopts rules governing how local franchising authorities
may regulate cable operators and cable television services.
DATES: These rule revisions are effective on September 26, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Maria Mullarkey or Raelynn Remy of the Media
Bureau, Policy Division, at [email protected],
[email protected] or (202) 418-2120.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Third
Report and Order, FCC 19-80, adopted on August 1, 2019. 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, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document
will also be available via ECFS at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-80A1.docx. Documents will be available
electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. The
complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,
445 12th Street SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. 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).
Synopsis
1. In this Third Report and Order (Third Order), we interpret
sections of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act) that
govern how local franchising authorities (LFAs) may regulate cable
operators and cable television services, with specific focus on issues
remanded from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
(Sixth Circuit) in Montgomery County, Md. et al. v. FCC.
2. Every LFA as well as every ``cable operator'' that offers
``cable service'' must comply with the cable franchising provisions of
Title VI of the Act. Section 621(b)(1) prohibits a cable operator from
providing cable service without first obtaining a cable franchise,
while section 621(a)(1) circumscribes the power of LFAs to award or
deny such franchises. In addition, section 622 allows LFAs to charge
franchise fees and sets the upper boundaries of those fees. Notably,
section 622 caps the fee at five percent of a ``cable operator's gross
revenues derived . . . from the operation of the cable system to
provide cable service.'' \1\ When Congress initially adopted these
sections in 1984, it explained that it was setting forth a federal
policy to ``define and limit the authority that a franchising authority
may exercise through the franchise process.'' Congress also expressly
preempted any state or local laws or actions that conflict with those
definitions and limits.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 47 U.S.C. 542.
\2\ Id. 556(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. As summarized in detail in the Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (FNPRM) (83 FR 51911, Oct. 15, 2018), the Commission has an
extensive history of rulemakings and litigation interpreting sections
621 and
[[Page 44726]]
622. In short, the Commission in 2007 released a First Report and Order
(72 FR 13189, March 21, 2007) to provide guidance about terms and
conditions in local franchise agreements that are unreasonable under
section 621 of the Act with respect to new entrants' franchise
agreements.\3\ Two major conclusions that the Commission adopted are
that (1) non-cash, ``in-kind'' contributions from cable operators to
franchise authorities are franchise fees that count toward the
statutory cap of five percent of cable operator revenue, and (2)
franchising authorities may not use their cable franchising authority
to regulate non-cable services (like telephone and broadband services)
that the new entrants deliver over their mixed-use networks (i.e.,
networks that carry broadband services, voice services, and other non-
cable services, in addition to video programming services). The
Commission also sought comment on whether to extend those conclusions
to agreements that LFAs have with incumbent cable operators, and
ultimately decided in a Second Report and Order (72 FR 65670, Nov. 23,
2007) and an Order on Reconsideration (80 FR 12088, Mar. 6, 2015) that
those conclusions should apply to incumbent cable operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The term ``new entrants'' as used in the First Report and
Order refers to entities that choose to offer ``cable service'' over
a ``cable system'' utilizing public rights-of-way and thus are
deemed under the Act to be ``cable operator[s]'' that must obtain a
franchise. Such new entrants largely were telecommunications
carriers subject to Title II of the Act that were seeking to enter
the cable services market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. In Montgomery County, the Sixth Circuit addressed challenges by
LFAs to the Second Report and Order and the Order on
Reconsideration.\4\ The court agreed that in-kind (i.e., non-cash)
contributions are 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--such as free or discounted cable
services or obligations related to PEG channels--as franchise fees.\5\
LFAs had claimed that the Commission's interpretation would limit LFAs'
ability to enforce their statutory authority to require cable operators
to dedicate channel capacity for PEG use and to impose build-out
obligations in low-income areas, and the court noted that the
Commission's orders did not reflect any consideration of this concern.
The court also stated that the Commission 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Montgomery County, 863 F.3d at 487.
\5\ In the First Report and Order, the Commission ruled that
``any requests made by LFAs that are unrelated to the provision of
cable services by a new competitive entrant are subject to the
statutory 5 percent franchise fee cap.'' This ruling was upheld by
the Sixth Circuit in Alliance. The Commission later relied on the
First Report and Order to conclude that ``in-kind payments involving
both cable and non-cable services'' count toward the franchise fee
cap. The court found that the Order on Reconsideration incorrectly
asserted that the First Report and Order had already treated ``in-
kind'' cable-related exactions as franchise fees and that the Sixth
Circuit had approved such treatment in Alliance. The court also
found that the First Report and Order did not make clear that cable-
related exactions are franchise fees under section 622(g)(1). In
this regard, the court pointed out that the Commission specifically
told the Sixth Circuit in Alliance that the First Report and Order's
``analysis of in-kind payments was expressly limited to payments
that do not involve the provision of cable service.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. The court in Montgomery County also agreed with LFAs that
neither the Second Report and Order nor the Order on Reconsideration
offered a valid statutory basis for the Commission's application of its
prior ``mixed-use ruling'' to incumbent cable operators.\6\ Under the
mixed-use rule, ``LFAs' jurisdiction applies only to the provision of
cable services over cable systems'' and ``an LFA may not use its video
franchising authority to attempt to regulate a LEC's entire network
beyond the provision of cable services.'' The court stated that the
Commission's decision in the First Report and Order to apply the mixed-
use rule 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 rule 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 rule 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 basis for the Commission's decision to
extend the mixed-use rule to incumbent cable operators. Accordingly,
the court concluded that the Commission's extension of the mixed-use
rule to incumbent cable operators that are not common carriers was
arbitrary and capricious. The court vacated the mixed-use rule 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The court noted that LFAs' primary concern with the mixed-
use ruling is that it would prevent them from regulating
``institutional networks'' or ``I-Nets''--communication networks
that are constructed or operated by the cable operator and 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 rule was not meant to prevent LFAs from
regulating I-Nets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. The Commission in September 2018 issued the Second FNPRM to
address the issues raised by the remand from the Sixth Circuit in
Montgomery County.
7. We largely adopt our tentative conclusions in the Second
FNPRM.\7\ First, we conclude that cable-related, in-kind contributions
required by LFAs from cable operators as a condition or requirement of
a franchise agreement are franchise fees subject to the statutory five
percent cap on franchise fees set forth in section 622 of the Act. We
find that the Act exempts capital contributions associated with the
acquisition or improvement of a PEG facility from this definition and
remind LFAs that under the Act they may only require ``adequate'' PEG
access channel capacity, facilities, or financial support. Second, we
find that our mixed-use rule applies to incumbent cable operators.
Third, we find that the Act preempts any state or local regulation of a
cable operator's non-cable services that would
[[Page 44727]]
impose obligations on franchised cable operators beyond what Title VI
of the Act allows. Finally, we decide that our guidance related to the
local franchising process in this docket also will apply to state-level
franchising actions and state regulations that impose requirements on
local franchising.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ As discussed below, we define ``cable related, in-kind
contributions'' slightly differently than proposed, and our
reasoning for not applying build-out costs is different than what we
proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Section 622 of the Act contains a broad definition of franchise
fees. For the reasons provided below, we find that most cable-related,
in-kind contributions are encompassed within this definition and thus
must be included for purposes of calculating the statutory five percent
cap on such fees. In this section, we first explain our interpretation
of section 622 and why the definition of franchise fees includes most
cable-related, in-kind contributions. We then explain how our
interpretation applies to certain common franchise agreement terms.
Lastly, we explain the process that LFAs and cable operators should use
to amend their franchise agreements to conform to this Order.
9. Addressing the first issue raised by the remand from the Sixth
Circuit in Montgomery County, we adopt our tentative conclusion that we
should treat cable-related, in-kind contributions \8\ required by LFAs
from cable operators as a condition or requirement of a franchise
agreement as franchise fees subject to the statutory five percent cap
set forth in section 622 of the Act, with limited exceptions as
described herein. We also adopt our tentative conclusion that this
treatment of cable-related, in-kind contributions should be applied to
both new entrants and incumbent cable operators. As explained below, we
find that this interpretation is consistent with the statutory language
and legislative history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ We define this term 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,
including but not limited to free or discounted cable service to
public buildings, non-capital costs in support of PEG access, and
costs attributable to the construction of I-Nets. It does not
include the costs of complying with build-out and customer service
requirements.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Section 622 of Title VI, entitled ``Franchise fees,'' governs
cable operator obligations with respect to franchise fees.
Specifically, section 622(a) states that any cable operator may be
required under the terms of any franchise agreement to pay a franchise
fee, and section 622(b) sets forth the limitation that ``[f]or any
twelve-month period, 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.'' Notably, section 622(g)
defines the term ``franchise fee'' for purposes of this section.
11. To understand what types of contributions from cable operators
are franchise fees subject to the five percent statutory cap, the key
provision is the section 622(g) definition, which states that ``the
term `franchise fee' includes any tax, fee, or assessment of any kind
imposed by a franchising authority or other governmental entity on a
cable operator or cable subscriber, or both, solely because of their
status as such,'' subject to certain enumerated exceptions.
Specifically, according to the definition, the term ``franchise fee''
does not include the following: (1) Any tax, fee, or assessment of
general applicability; \9\ (2) in the case of any franchise in effect
on October 30, 1984, payments which are required by the franchise to be
made by the cable operator during the term of such franchise for, or in
support of the use of, PEG access facilities; (3) in the case of any
franchise granted after October 30, 1984, capital costs which are
required by the franchise to be incurred by the cable operator for PEG
access facilities; (4) 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; \10\ or (5) any fee imposed under
Title 17.\11\ Because Congress spoke directly to the issue of what
constitutes a franchise fee in section 622(g), our analysis of whether
cable-related, in-kind exactions are included in the franchise fee is
appropriately focused on this statutory language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In the Second FNPRM, we noted that, by definition, a tax,
fee, or assessment of general applicability does not cover cable-
related, in-kind contributions, and therefore we tentatively
concluded that this exclusion is not applicable to such
contributions. No commenter disputes this analysis, and we affirm it
here.
\10\ In the First Report and Order, the Commission found that
the term ``incidental'' in this section should be limited to the
list of incidentals in the statutory provision, as well as certain
other minor expenses, and the court in Alliance upheld this
determination. The Commission also emphasized that non-incidental
costs should be counted toward the five percent cap on franchise
fees, and listed various examples including 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, and in-kind services
unrelated to the provision of cable services. In the Second FNPRM,
we explained that, although the statute does not define the term
``incidental,'' based on the interpretive canon of noscitur a
sociis, the exemplary list delineated in the text of the provision
as well as the applicable legislative history 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. Consistent with
this analysis and precedent, we find that cable-related, in-kind
contributions demanded by an LFA do not qualify as ``incidental''
charges excluded in section 622(g)(2)(D). No commenter disputes our
interpretation of this particular exclusion.
\11\ In the Second FNPRM, we explained that this section
excludes from the definition of franchise fees any 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. No
commenter disputes this analysis, and we affirm it here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. As a preliminary matter, we note our prior finding, which was
upheld by the Sixth Circuit in Montgomery County, that the franchise
fee definition in section 622(g) can encompass both monetary payments
imposed by a franchising authority or other governmental entity on a
cable operator, as well as ``in-kind'' payments--i.e., payments
consisting of something other than money, such as goods and services
\12\--that are so imposed.\13\ The definition of ``franchise fee'' in
section 622(g)(1) broadly covers ``any tax, fee, or assessment of any
kind imposed by a franchising authority or other governmental entity on
a cable operator . . . solely because of [its] status as such.''
Because the statute does not define the terms ``tax,'' ``fee,'' or
``assessment,'' we look to the ordinary meaning of such terms.\14\ As
the court explained in Montgomery County, the definitions of the terms
``tax'' and ``assessment,'' in particular, ``can include noncash
exactions.'' Further, as
[[Page 44728]]
the court observed, section 622(g)(1) ``more specifically defines
`franchise fee' to include `any tax, fee, or assessment of any kind[,]'
. . . which requires us to give those terms maximum breadth.'' Thus,
consistent with the court's conclusion on this issue, the term
franchise fee in section 622(g)(1) includes non-monetary payments. We,
therefore, reject arguments that it should be construed to cover only
monetary payments.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ According to the record, LFAs in some cases require a grant
or other monetary contribution earmarked for cable-related services,
such as PEG and I-Net support. While we focus here on whether cable-
related, in-kind (non-monetary) contributions are subject to the
five percent cap on franchise fees, we note that these monetary
contributions are subject to the franchise fee cap, unless otherwise
excluded under section 622(g)(2).
\13\ We reject the argument that franchise considerations are
not ``imposed'' by a franchising authority because they are
negotiated in an arms-length transaction between the parties and
``are not established by force.'' The definition of the term
``impose'' is not limited to ``established as if by force,'' but can
also mean ``to establish or apply by authority.'' Further, under
this narrow interpretation of the term, no monetary or in-kind
payments could be construed as a franchise fee if they are
negotiated by the parties as terms of the franchise agreement. As
NCTA points out, ``[b]y this standard, even a franchise agreement
containing a requirement that the cable operator pay five percent of
gross revenues to the franchising authority would not contain a
franchise fee, since the five percent fee was included in a
negotiated document and was not imposed by government fiat.''
\14\ We disagree with NATOA et al.'s contention that the
Commission ``nowhere analyzes or explains why [certain] franchise
requirements are `assessments' or `exactions.' '' Rather, we find
that an ``assessment,'' the term used in the statute, includes any
contribution imposed by government, based on its ordinary meaning.
\15\ Contrary to these arguments, the terms used in the statute
are not limited to monetary payments. Moreover, these arguments
ignore Congress' specification that the franchise fee includes ``any
tax, fee, or assessment of any kind,'' essentially reading this
expansive language out of the statute. For example, although Anne
Arundel County et al. argue ``that generally, taxes, fees, and
assessments are monetary, but that in exceptional circumstances
(such as forfeitures) non-monetary obligations may also qualify,''
there is nothing in the statute--which specifically applies to a
tax, fee, or assessment of any kind--or in the definition of these
terms that supports this statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. As the court noted in Montgomery County, ``that the term
`franchise fee' can include noncash exactions, of course, does not mean
that it necessarily does include every one of them.'' As such, the next
step in our analysis is to evaluate specifically whether cable-related,
in-kind contributions are included within the franchise fees. The
Commission previously determined that in-kind contributions unrelated
to the provision of cable service are franchise fees subject to the
statutory five percent cap, and the court's decision in Montgomery
County upheld this interpretation.\16\ In making this determination,
the Commission pointed to examples in the record where LFAs demanded
in-kind contributions unrelated to the provision of cable services in
the context of franchise negotiations, and it explained that such
requests do not fall within any of the exempted categories in section
622(g)(2) and thus should be considered a franchise fee under section
622(g)(1).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Contrary to the contention of NATOA et al., the
Commission's finding in the First Report and Order that in-kind
contributions unrelated to the provision of cable services are
franchise fees subject to the statutory five percent cap was
undisturbed by subsequent court decisions in Alliance and Montgomery
County. The court in Montgomery County vacated the orders to the
extent they treat cable-related, in-kind exactions as franchise
fees, and thus the Commission's finding with regard to in-kind
contributions unrelated to the provision of cable services still
stands.
\17\ In the First Report and Order, the Commission cited
examples of in-kind contributions unrelated to the provision of
cable services from the record, including requests for traffic light
control systems, scholarships, and video hookups for a holiday
celebration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. We find that there is no basis in the statute for exempting all
cable-related, in-kind contributions for purposes of the five percent
franchise fee cap or for distinguishing between cable-related, in-kind
contributions and in-kind contributions unrelated to the provision of
cable services. As noted above, the section 622(g)(1) franchise fee
definition broadly covers ``any tax, fee, or assessment of any kind,''
and we conclude that cable-related, in-kind contributions fall within
this definition. There is nothing in this language that limits in-kind
contributions included in the franchise fee. In fact, Congress
specified that the definition covers ``any'' tax, fee, or assessment
``of any kind,'' which means those terms should be interpreted
expansively and given ``maximum breadth.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Anne Arundel County et al. make the conclusory statement
that ``[r]egulatory obligations are clearly not a tax or fee,''
without citing a definition of these terms or including the term
``assessment,'' and they make no mention of the court's own
conclusion in Montgomery County that the term franchise fee ``can
include noncash exactions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Further, there is no general exemption for cable-related, in-
kind contributions in the five excluded categories listed in section
622(g)(2). Only two of the exclusions encompass two very specific kinds
of cable-related, in-kind contributions, but not all such contributions
generally. In particular, section 622(g)(2)(B) excludes payments
required by the franchise to be made by the cable operator for, or in
support of the use of, PEG access facilities (for franchises in effect
on October 30, 1984), and section 622(g)(2)(C) excludes capital costs
which are required by the franchise to be incurred by the cable
operator for PEG access facilities (for franchises granted after
October 30, 1984). We agree with ACA that the structure of the relevant
statutory provision is ``straightforward,'' providing a broad
definition of franchise fee, ``then expressly provid[ing] a limited
number of exceptions to this definition, none of which is so broad as
to include all cable-related, in-kind contributions.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ According to Anne Arundel County et al., the Commission
incorrectly implies that ``unless something falls within an
exception, it must be a tax, fee, or assessment.'' However, this is
inconsistent with our analysis, in which we first evaluate whether a
type of contribution meets the definition of franchise fee in
section 622(g)(1) and, if so, then determine whether it falls within
a specified exception in section 622(g)(2). It is also inconsistent
with our conclusion herein that certain requirements, such as
customer service and build-out requirements, are not covered by the
definition of franchise fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Moreover, the fact that Congress carved out specific exceptions
to the franchise fee definition for certain PEG-related contributions
bolsters the conclusion that Congress did not intend to establish a
general exemption for all cable-related, in-kind contributions from
treatment as franchise fees. Because support for PEG access facilities
and PEG capital costs fall within the broader category of cable-
related, in-kind contributions, Congress would not have needed to craft
these narrow exceptions if all cable-related, in-kind contributions
generally were exempted. We disagree with the contention that the
specific exceptions in section 622(g)(2) were intended to address only
``payments that otherwise might be considered franchise fees,'' and
that ``[o]ther cable-related obligations were not considered `fees' to
begin with, let alone payments that required a specific exemption.''
This argument erroneously constricts the definition of franchise fees
to apply only to ``fees,'' while the statute more broadly includes
``any tax, fee, or assessment of any kind.'' Further, we believe it is
more consistent with the statutory text and structure to construe the
exceptions as carve-outs from a broader definition that sweeps in all
cable-related, in-kind contributions.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ For example, under section 622(g)(2)(B), payments required
by the franchise to be made by the cable operator for, or in support
of the use of, PEG access facilities are included in the franchise
fee only for franchises granted after October 30, 1984.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. While the statutory text is alone sufficient to support our
conclusion, we also find that the legislative history supports our
position that cable-related, in-kind contributions are franchise fees
subject to the five percent cap. As we observed in the Second FNPRM, we
see no basis in the 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.\21\ Further, we see no basis in the legislative
history to treat in-kind payments differently from monetary payments
for purposes of determining what is a franchise fee. The legislative
history, in discussing what constitutes a franchise fee, refers to the
definition in section 622(g)(1), which ``include[s] any tax, fee, or
assessment imposed on a cable operator or subscribers solely because of
their status as such,'' and it makes no distinction between cable-
related contributions and those unrelated to cable services, nor
between monetary and non-monetary payments. The legislative history
then
[[Page 44729]]
elaborates on the specific exemptions in section 622(g)(2) and, in
particular, notes that ``[s]pecific exemptions from the franchise fee
limitations are included for certain payments related to public,
educational and governmental access.'' It specifies that, ``[f]or
existing franchises, a city may enforce requirements that additional
payments be made above the 5 percent cap to defray the cost of
providing public, educational and governmental access, including
requirements related to channels, facilities and support necessary for
PEG use.'' Because Congress limited this exception to then-existing
franchises, this provision elucidates Congress' intent that
contributions in support of PEG access--which are cable-related, in-
kind contributions--are subject to the five percent cap for franchises
granted after the 1984 Cable Act.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ According to NCTA, the legislative history shows that
Congress' intent generally was to limit the total financial
obligations that franchising authorities may impose on cable
operators. We find that allowing LFAs to circumvent the statutory
five percent cap by not counting cable-related, in-kind
contributions that clearly fall within the statutory definition of
franchise fees would be contrary to Congress' intent as reflected in
the broad definition of franchise fee in the statute.
\22\ Although the City of New York opines that the examples of
franchise fees in the legislative history are all ``services that do
not use the cable operator's cable system or other communications
facilities (`CF') or call on the core competencies (`CC') of the
cable operator,'' this reading overlooks the fact that certain PEG-
related costs are included as franchise fees, and it creates a
distinction that is not apparent from either the statute or the
legislative history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. We disagree with commenters who cite to a portion of the
legislative history as evidence of Congress' intent that franchise fees
include only monetary payments made by cable operators. Specifically,
LFA commenters cite a statement in the discussion of subsection
622(g)(2)(C), which excludes certain PEG-related capital costs from the
franchise fee definition, that ``[i]n general, this section defines as
a franchise fee only monetary payments made by the cable operator, and
does not include as a `fee' any franchise requirements for the
provision of services, facilities or equipment.'' LFA commenters'
reading of this statement is inconsistent with the overall text and
structure of section 622(g).\23\ Section 622(g)(1) ``specifically
defines `franchise fee' to include `any tax, fee, or assessment of any
kind[,]' '' subject to certain enumerated exclusions, and the court in
Montgomery County was clear that this statutory language ``requires us
to give those terms maximum breadth.'' The Commission has already
concluded, and the Sixth Circuit has twice upheld, that non-monetary
payments can be franchise fees. Further, this reading would render
section 622(g)(2)(C) superfluous because there would not need to be an
exemption for PEG-related in-kind contributions if non-monetary
contributions were not franchise fees in the first place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ For the same reason, we are not persuaded by Anne Arundel
County et al.'s reliance on a letter from the Commission's Cable
Services Bureau that quotes the legislative history. First, this
Bureau-level letter does not bind the Commission. Second, to the
extent that the Bureau's guidance 20 years ago conflicts with the
conclusions in this rulemaking, it is reversed and superseded. We
note that the letter merely cites the statute and legislative
history, without analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Because we believe that the pertinent statutory provision in
section 622(g) supports our conclusion that cable-related, in-kind
contributions are franchise fees, we reject arguments raised by
franchise authorities that other Title VI provisions should be read to
exclude costs that are clearly included by the franchise fee
definition. Instead of focusing on the key definition of ``franchise
fee'' as ``any tax, fee, or assessment of any kind'' subject to certain
enumerated exceptions, LFA commenters cite to other parts of the
statute which, they argue, evince Congress' intent to exclude cable-
related, in-kind contributions from the statutory cap on franchise
fees. We reject each of these arguments in turn below.
20. First, we affirm our tentative conclusion that treating cable-
related, in-kind contributions as franchise fees would not undermine
the provisions in the Act that authorize or require LFAs to impose
cable-related obligations on franchisees. For example, section 611(b)
of the Act permits 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. Anne Arundel County et al. argue that
the Commission errs by not acknowledging that the Cable Act
``authorize[s] LFAs to both impose cable franchise obligations [in
section 611] and collect franchise fees [in section 622]--they do not
offset each other.'' However, as we observed in the Second FNPRM, the
fact that the Act authorizes LFAs to impose such obligations does not
mean that the value of these obligations should be excluded from the
five percent cap on franchise fees. We agree with NCTA and ACA that
there is no basis in the statutory text for concluding that the
authority provided in section 611(b) affects the definition of
franchise fee in section 622(g). As explained above, section 622(g) is
the key provision that defines what is included in the franchise fee,
and section 622(g)(2) carves out only limited exclusions for PEG-
related costs and makes no mention of an I-Net-related exclusion. Since
Congress enacted the PEG and I-Net provisions at the same time it added
the franchise fee provisions, it could have explicitly excluded all
costs related to PEG and I-Nets if it had intended they not count
toward the cap.\24\ Instead, they just excluded a subset of those
costs. Further, if we were to interpret the statute such that all costs
related to PEG, I-Nets, or other requirements imposed in section 611
are excluded from treatment as franchise fees because section 611(b)
contemplates that such costs be incurred, the specific exemption for
PEG capital costs in section 622(g)(2)(D) would be superfluous. While
we acknowledge that PEG channels and I-Nets provide benefits to
consumers, such benefits cannot override the statutory framework, which
carves out only limited exclusions from franchise fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ We disagree with the Cable Act Preservation Alliance (CAPA)
that ``it is equally true that Congress could have explicitly noted
the franchise fee limitation in 47 U.S.C. Section 531(b) if it had
intended to include these PEG-related costs as franchise fees.''
There was no need for Congress to specify which PEG-related costs
are franchise fees in section 611 when the statute sets forth a
standalone provision, section 622, that defines what is included in
the franchise fee and specifically addresses PEG-related costs.
NATOA et al. argue that the Commission ``ignores that build-out and
customer service obligations also were enacted by Congress at the
same time it added the franchise fee provisions and were not
explicitly excluded from the cap, yet . . . finds these are not
`franchise fees.' '' However, we explain herein that Congress
expressly stated that cable operators are responsible for the cost
of constructing cable systems. We also find herein that federally
mandated customer service standards are not a ``tax, fee, or
assessment'' and, thus, there was no need for Congress to exclude
them from the franchise fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Next, we do not find persuasive the argument that section 626
of the Act ``reflects the fact that cable-related franchise
requirements are not franchise fees.'' Section 626 directs franchising
authorities to consider, among other things, whether a cable operator's
franchise renewal proposal ``is reasonable to meet the future cable-
related community needs and interests, taking into account the cost of
meeting such needs and interests.'' NATOA et al. contend that if cable-
related, in-kind requirements are included as franchise fees, ``it
would be the LFA who pays for them, rendering the cost consideration in
this Section obsolete.'' We disagree with this reasoning. As NCTA
explains, ``[t]he cost/benefit analysis required under this provision
underscores that Congress intended franchising authorities to balance
the desire for any in-kind exactions requested by parties in the
renewal process against the overall franchise fee burdens on cable
operators and subscribers.'' The section 626 assessment does not lose
its purpose if cable-related, in-kind contributions are counted as
franchise fees; as part of this assessment, for example, a franchising
authority could determine that cable-related community
[[Page 44730]]
needs and interests can be met at a lower cost to cable subscribers
than the full five percent franchise fee.\25\ Moreover, the community
needs assessment in section 626 also accounts for items that are not
in-kind contributions subject to the franchise fee cap, such as build-
out requirements.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ As Congress noted when it adopted the five percent cap, the
Commission capped franchise fees at three percent of a cable
operator's revenue.
\26\ Build-out requirements are subject to section 626's
directive to assess reasonableness while taking into account the
cost of such requirements, and a build-out requirement requested by
an LFA could be challenged under section 626.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Finally, we disagree with commenters that cite a provision in
section 622 that relates to itemization on customer bills as evidence
that Congress did not intend PEG-related franchise obligations to be
included in franchise fees. In particular, LFA commenters point to
section 622(c)(1), which specifies that cable operators may identify as
a separate line item on each subscriber bill each of the following: (1)
The amount of the total bill assessed as a franchise fee and the
identity of the franchising authority to which the fee is paid; (2) the
amount of the total bill assessed to satisfy any requirements imposed
on the cable operator by the franchise agreement to support PEG
channels or the use of such channels; and (3) the amount of any other
fee, tax, assessment, or charge of any kind imposed by any governmental
authority on the transaction between the operator and the subscriber.
LFA commenters argue that ``[t]hrough this language, Congress clearly
outlined a separation between franchise fees and cable-related, in-kind
fees.'' On the contrary, ``the fact that Section 622(c) allows cable
operators to itemize certain charges on subscriber bills has no bearing
on which charges meet the definition of franchise fees under Section
622(g).'' While section 622(g) was adopted as part of the 1984 Cable
Act, Congress adopted section 622(c) years later in 1992 to promote
transparency by allowing cable operators to inform subscribers about
how much of their total bill is made of charges imposed by local
governments through the franchising process. By differentiating the
types of charges that can be itemized on subscriber bills, there is no
indication that Congress intended to exclude certain charges from the
franchise fee.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Moreover, as NCTA observes, ``[t]he fallacy that section
622(c) distinguishes franchise fees from other exactions, as NATOA
and others claim, is underscored by the fact that subsection (c)(3)
repeats virtually verbatim section 622(g)(1)'s broad definition of a
franchise fee. Yet, by NATOA's logic, the itemization of a cost
under subsection (c)(3) would control its treatment for franchise
fee purposes, removing it from the very definition that Congress
established for such fees in section 622(g)(1). . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Having established our interpretation of section 622(g), we
adopt our tentative conclusion that this treatment of cable-related,
in-kind contributions should be applied to both new entrants and
incumbent cable operators. As the Commission has previously observed,
section 622 ``does not distinguish between incumbent providers and new
entrants.'' We affirm our belief that applying the same treatment of
cable-related, in-kind contributions to both new entrants and incumbent
cable operators will 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.
24. We disagree with the contention that our interpretation of the
franchise fee definition in section 622(g) is impermissible under
Chevron.\28\ Charles County, Maryland posits that ``[b]ecause Congress
has directly addressed the questions at issue by employing precise,
unambiguous statutory language in section 622 of the Act, the FCC's
proposed rules re-imagining . . . what constitutes a `franchise fee'
are impermissible,'' as ``[o]nly Congress may alter or amend federal
law.'' Charles County does not offer an explanation for why the
statutory language is unambiguous beyond arguing that the words ``tax,
fee, or assessment'' in the definition are terms of art. But regardless
of whether these are terms of art, they can include non-monetary
contributions, as the Sixth Circuit observed. And we believe that our
interpretation of this language using traditional tools of statutory
construction is a reasonable and permissible construction of the
statute that effectuates Congressional intent for the reasons set forth
above.\29\ Indeed, it is the interpretation that is most consistent
with the plain meaning of the statutory definition of franchise fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Review of the FCC's interpretation of the statutes it
administers is governed by Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources
Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
\29\ Where a ``statute is silent or ambiguous'' with respect to
a specific issue, ``the question'' for the court is whether the
agency has adopted ``a permissible construction of the statute.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. In this section, we analyze whether specific types of cable-
related, in-kind contributions are franchise fees subject to the five
percent statutory cap under section 622. First, we find that costs
attributable to franchise terms that require free or discounted cable
service to public buildings are franchise fees, consistent with our
tentative conclusion that treating all cable-related, in-kind
contributions as franchise fees unless expressly excluded would best
effectuate the statutory purpose. Next, we adopt our tentative
conclusion that costs in support of PEG access are franchise fees, with
the exception of capital costs as defined below. Similarly, we find
that costs attributable to construction of I-Nets are franchise fees.
Finally, we conclude that build-out and customer service requirements
do not fall within the statutory definition of franchise fee. Based on
these conclusions with respect to specific types of costs, we adopt a
definition of ``in-kind, cable-related 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, including but not limited to free or discounted cable
service to public buildings, costs in support of PEG access other than
capital costs, and costs attributable to the construction of I-Nets. It
does not include the costs of complying with build-out and customer
service requirements.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ We modify the definition slightly from what was proposed in
the Second FNPRM to reflect the conclusions adopted herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. We find that costs attributable to franchise terms that require
a cable operator to provide free or discounted cable service to public
buildings, including buildings leased by or under control of the
franchise authority, are cable-related, in-kind contributions that fall
within the five percent cap on franchise fees. The record includes
examples of cable operators providing cable service to public buildings
as part of a franchise agreement. Consistent with our statutory
interpretation above, providing free or discounted cable service to
public buildings is an in-kind (i.e., non-monetary) contribution
imposed on a cable operator by a franchise authority, and is not
included in one of the enumerated exceptions from the franchise fee in
section 622(g)(2). Although certain commenters emphasize that free and
discounted cable services have been considered franchise considerations
that are not subject to the five percent cap on franchise fees in past
franchise agreements,\31\ we find that our reading
[[Page 44731]]
that free and discounted services count towards the franchise fee cap
is a reasonable interpretation and best effectuates Congressional
intent given that the statute defines franchise fee broadly, carving
out only limited exclusions. If LFAs could circumvent the five percent
cap by requiring unlimited free or discounted cable services for public
buildings, in addition to a five percent franchise fee, this result
would be contrary to Congress's intent as reflected in the broad
definition of ``franchise fee'' in the statute. We find that the Act
does not provide any basis for treating the value attributable to free
or discounted services in a different manner than other in-kind
services which must be included in the franchise fee. Although we
acknowledge that the provision of free or discounted cable service to
public buildings, such as schools or libraries, can benefit the public,
such benefits cannot override the statutory framework. Further, there
are policy rationales for limiting free services, given that, in a
competitive market, such contributions may raise the costs of the cable
operator's service, reduce resources available for other services, and
result in market inefficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ AWC cites a Bureau-level order in which the Cable Services
Bureau found that where the LFA and cable operator agreed to
establish franchise provisions regarding the eligibility standards
for a senior citizen discount rate and the formula for adjusting
that rate, these terms were not preempted by federal law. While this
decision is about the inclusion of discounted services in the
franchise terms, it does not address whether discounted services
should be included in the franchise fee and, thus, is not
inconsistent with our findings herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. We conclude in this section that in-kind contributions related
to PEG access facilities are cable-related, in-kind contributions, and
are therefore included within the statutory definition of ``franchise
fees'' under section 622(g)(1).\32\ We next conclude that the term
``capital cost'' in section 622(g)(2)(C) should be given its ordinary
meaning, which is a cost incurred in acquiring or improving a capital
asset. Applying that interpretation, we conclude that the exclusion for
capital costs under section 622(g)(2)(C) could include equipment that
satisfies this definition, regardless of whether such equipment is
purchased in connection with the construction of a PEG access facility.
We then conclude that the record is insufficiently developed for the
Commission to determine whether the provision of PEG channel capacity
is included within section 622(g)(2)(C)'s exclusion for capital costs.
We also find that the installation of PEG transport facilities are
capital costs that are exempt from the five percent franchise fee
cap,\33\ and that maintenance of those facilities are operating costs
that count toward the cap. Finally, we address policy arguments
regarding the impact of these conclusions on the provision of PEG
programming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ PEG channels provide third-party access to cable systems
through channels dedicated for use by the public, including local
governments, schools, and non-profit and community groups. The Act
provides for the creation and support of PEG channels in various
ways, including by authorizing LFAs to require franchisees to
designate channel capacity for PEG, and by excluding certain costs
associated with PEG access facilities from the definition of
franchise fees under section 622(g)(2).
\33\ As explained below, ``PEG transport facilities'' are
facilities that LFAs use to deliver PEG services from studios or
other locations where the programming is produced to the cable
headend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. Consistent with our tentative conclusion in the Second FNPRM,
we find that the definition of franchise fee in section 622(g)(1)
encompasses PEG-related contributions. Like other taxes, fees, or
assessments imposed by LFAs, we find that contributions related to PEG
access facilities imposed by an LFA are subject to the five percent cap
on franchise fees, unless they fall within one of the five exclusions
set forth in section 622(g)(2). Consistent with the statutory analysis
above, we conclude that the provision of equipment, services, and
similar contributions for PEG access facilities are cable-related, in-
kind contributions that meet the definition of franchise fee.\34\ Such
PEG-related contributions are not exempt under section 622(g)(2) of the
Act unless they fall under the limited exceptions for capital costs and
costs incurred by franchises existing at the time of the Cable Act's
adoption in 1984. As explained above, our starting point for analyzing
cable operator contributions to LFAs is that the Act defines
``franchise fee'' broadly and has limited, narrow exceptions. Thus, we
believe that including in the franchise fee cap any costs that are not
specifically exempt is consistent with the statute and reasonably
effectuates Congressional intent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ In some cases, LFAs require a grant or other monetary
contribution earmarked for PEG-related costs. These monetary
contributions are likewise subject to the five percent cap on
franchise fees, unless otherwise excluded under section 622(g)(2).
Section 622 exempts only the items delineated in (g)(2), and
Congress did not distinguish between in-kind and monetary
contributions, nor did it exempt monetary contributions earmarked
for a purpose that would otherwise not be excluded under section
622(g)(2). Thus, we make clear that monetary contributions--like in-
kind contributions--must be counted toward the franchise fee cap
unless expressly exempt under section 622(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. Further, including contributions for PEG access facilities
within the franchise fee definition is consistent with the overall
structure of section 622. For ``any franchise in effect on October 30,
1984,'' section 622(g)(2)(B) excludes from the definition of
``franchise fee'' ``payments which are required by the franchise to be
made by the cable operator during the term of such franchise for, or in
support of the use of [PEG] access facilities.'' There would have been
no reason for Congress to grandfather in these PEG-related
contributions for existing franchises if such payments were not
otherwise included within the definition of ``franchise fees.'' In
effect, excluding PEG-related contributions would read ``in the case of
any franchise in effect on October 30, 1984'' out of section
622(g)(2)(B), extending this grandfathered exclusion to all franchises.
30. Some commenters claim that other sections of Title VI,
including the section authorizing LFAs to require the designation of
PEG channel capacity in section 611, override section 622's definition
of ``franchise fee.'' As discussed above, we find these arguments
unpersuasive. We also reject arguments that provisions of the Act
unrelated to cable franchising demonstrate that PEG-related fees are
not franchise fees. For example, section 623 of the Act, which governs
the regulation of cable rates, instructs the Commission to take the
following two factors (among others) into account when prescribing rate
regulations:
1. The reasonably and properly allocable portion of any amount
assessed as a franchise fee, tax, or charge of any kind imposed by
any State or local authority on the transactions between cable
operators and cable subscribers or any other fee, tax, or assessment
of general applicability imposed by a governmental entity applied
against cable operators or cable subscribers; and
2. Any amount required to satisfy franchise requirements to
support public, educational, or governmental channels or the use of
such channels or any other services required under the franchise.
Commenters argue that the separate listing of franchise fees (in 1) and
the costs of PEG franchise requirements (in 2) is evidence that
franchise fees do not include PEG-related costs. We disagree. We note
that that the question of which factors the Commission should consider
in setting rate regulations is both legally and analytically distinct
from the question of which costs are included as a franchise fee under
section 622. Even if it were not, the separate listing of franchise
fees and PEG-related exactions in section 623 does not indicate that
Congress understood these categories to be mutually exclusive. In
general, section 623(b) directs the Commission to consider several
factors relating to cable operators' costs, revenue, and profits to
ensure that the Commission sets ``reasonable'' rates. Ensuring that a
rate is ``reasonable'' requires a full consideration of the costs borne
by cable operators. Listing only franchise fees would fail to account
for some of these costs, even under the interpretation
[[Page 44732]]
adopted in this Order: Franchise fees and PEG costs only partially
overlap, given that section 622(g)(2) excludes certain PEG-related
exactions from the definition of franchise fees. We therefore find
nothing inconsistent about the separate listing of franchise fees and
PEG-related costs in section 623 and the interpretation of section
622(g) adopted in this Order. The same analysis applies to the bill-
itemization requirements in section 622(c), which permits the separate
itemization of franchise fees and PEG-related assessments in subscriber
bills.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Several commenters raised section 622(c) as evidence that
franchise fees do not include PEG-related assessments. We note that
section 622(c) was adopted years after section 622(g) was enacted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. Consistent with our tentative conclusions in the Second FNPRM,
we conclude (1) that PEG support payments for any franchise in effect
on October 30, 1984 and (2) PEG capital costs for any franchise granted
after October 30, 1984 are exempt from the definition of franchise fee.
As discussed above, two provisions of section 622(g)(2) exclude certain
costs associated with PEG access facilities from the definition of
``franchise fee'' in section 622(g)(1): First, section 622(g)(2)(B)
excludes 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 affirm that under section 622(g)(2)(B), PEG support
payments made pursuant to such franchises are excluded from the five
percent franchise fee cap. Consistent with the statutory language and
legislative history, we find this exclusion is broad in scope, and
commenters did not dispute this interpretation in the record.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ The legislative history further supports this
interpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. Second, for any franchise granted after 1984, section
622(g)(2)(C) contains a narrower exclusion covering only PEG ``capital
costs which are required by the franchise to be incurred by the cable
operator for [PEG] access facilities.'' The Cable Act does not define
``capital costs''. We address the scope of this exclusion below by
first clarifying the definition of ``capital costs'' and concluding
that it can apply to contributions for both construction-related and
non-construction-related contributions to PEG access facilities. We
then determine that the record is insufficient to determine whether
costs associated with providing PEG channel capacity are subject to
this exclusion, and we discuss the application of the exclusion to PEG
transport.
33. Definition of ``capital costs.'' Although the Commission
previously asserted with respect to section 622(g)(2)(C) that
``[c]apital costs refer to those costs incurred in or associated with
the construction of PEG access facilities,'' we now revisit that
interpretation and provide additional clarity on the definition of this
term. As described below, we find that the term ``capital costs'' is
not limited to construction-related costs; rather, it generally
encompasses costs incurred in acquiring or improving capital assets for
PEG access facilities. The Commission's previous reading of the phrase
``capital costs'' was based in part on section 622(g)'s legislative
history, which states that the Cable Act excludes from the franchise
fee cap ``the capital costs associated with the construction of [PEG]
access facilities.'' The Sixth Circuit affirmed the Commission's prior
reading in Alliance, where, rejecting a challenge to the Commission's
construction of the term ``capital costs'' in the First Report and
Order, the court held that:
[t]o determine the permissibility of the Commission's construction
of Section 622(g)(2)(C), we start by consulting the legislative
history. During the enactment of this provision, Congress made clear
that it intended section 622(g)(2)(C) to reach ``capital costs
associated with the construction of [PEG] access facilities.''
H.R.Rep. No. 98-934, at 26 (emphasis added). Against this
legislative pronouncement, the FCC's limitation of ``capital costs''
to those ``incurred in or associated with the construction of PEG
access facilities'' represents an eminently reasonable construction
of section 622(g)(2)(C).
34. We asked for additional comment on the definition of ``capital
costs'' under section 622(g)(2)(C) in the Second FNPRM.\37\ Arguably,
the Commission's previous construction left unsettled the extent to
which the ``capital costs'' exclusion encompassed PEG equipment--such
as vans, studios, or cameras. In Alliance, the Sixth Circuit observed
that the Commission's definition of capital costs could encompass the
costs of such equipment, but only insofar as the equipment costs were
``relate[d] to the construction of PEG facilities.'' But neither the
First Report and Order nor the legislative history from which it
borrowed expressly limited capital costs to construction-related
capital costs. Both statements are silent--or, at most, unclear--about
the treatment of non-construction-related capital costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ The Second FNPRM noted that ``capital costs which are
required by the franchise to be incurred by the cable operator for
[PEG] access facilities'' are excluded from the definition of
franchise fee, and sought comment on treating the costs of studio
equipment as capital costs for the purpose of this exemption from
the franchise fee cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. Based on the arguments in the record and our further
consideration of the statutory text and legislative history we now
conclude that the Commission's earlier statement regarding the
definition of ``capital costs'' was overly narrow. As commenters note,
many local governments receive payments from cable operators that are
not simply for the construction of PEG studios, but also for, among
other things, the acquisition of equipment needed to produce PEG access
programming. LFAs argue for a broader definition of ``capital costs''
that would include PEG channel capacity and certain equipment costs
associated with PEG access facilities.\38\ By contrast, cable companies
have urged the Commission to reaffirm, based on its previous statement,
that ``capital costs'' are limited to costs associated with the
construction of PEG access facilities (and thus do not include channel
capacity and equipment such as cameras, or other equipment necessary to
run a PEG access facility).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Similarly, several commenters argue that section 611's
grant of authority to require PEG channels suggests that the cost of
such channels cannot count toward the five percent franchise fee
cap. We disagree with the notion that the Act's grant of authority
to require designation for PEG use necessarily excludes the costs of
PEG from the definition of franchise fees. As we note above, the
fact that the Act authorizes LFAs to impose such obligations does
not mean that the value of these obligations should be excluded from
the five percent cap on franchise fees. Section 622 governs
``Franchise Fees'' and makes clear that any items not expressly
excluded from that section's broad definition of franchise fees are
included against the statutory cap. Section 622 excludes some--but
not all--PEG-related costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. In general, when a term is undefined in a statute, courts look
to that term's ``ordinary meaning.'' While there is no general
definition of the precise term ``capital costs,'' Black's Law
Dictionary defines a similar term,\39\ ``capital expenditure,'' as
``[a]n outlay of funds to acquire or improve a fixed asset,'' and
defines a ``fixed asset,'' or ``capital asset'' as ``[a] long-term
asset used in the operation of a business or used to produce goods or
services, such as equipment, land, or an industrial plant.'' Merriam-
Webster similarly defines ``capital expenditure'' as ``costs that are
incurred in the acquisition or improvement of property (as capital
[[Page 44733]]
assets) or that are otherwise chargeable to a capital account,'' and
defines ``capital assets'' as ``long-term assets either tangible or
intangible (as land, buildings, patents, or franchises).'' An
accounting textbook provides yet another similar definition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Costs and expenditures are related, but not identical,
concepts. Black's Law Dictionary defines ``cost'' as ``the amount
paid or charged for something; price or expenditure.'' Black's
relevantly defines ``expenditure'' as ``a sum paid out.'' While we
recognize that ``cost'' and ``expenditure'' have distinct meanings
in the accounting context, for the purposes of our interpretation of
section 622(g)(2)(C), we find that the meanings of these terms are
highly analogous--i.e., both pertain to expending resources to
acquire a capital asset.
Expenditures for the purchase or expansion of plant assets are
called capital expenditures and are recorded in asset accounts. . .
. In brief, any material expenditure that will benefit several
accounting periods is considered a capital expenditure. Any
expenditure that will benefit only the current period or that is not
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
material in amount is treated as a revenue expenditure.
We also note that capital costs are distinct from operating costs
(or operating expenses), which are generally defined as expenses
``incurred in running a business and producing output.'' Reflecting
this distinction, the Commission has distinguished between costs
incurred in building of PEG facilities, which are capital costs, and
costs incurred in using those facilities, which are not.
37. While we may also look to legislative history or other context
in ascertaining a statute's meaning, none of these sources here compels
a narrower definition than that set forth above. The legislative
history is ambiguous: The passage relied on by the Commission in the
First Report and Order, from a summary in the House Report, notes that
``capital costs associated with the construction of [PEG] access
facilities are excluded from the definition of a franchise fee.'' But
section 622(g)(2)(C) does not itself restrict capital costs to costs
that are construction related, nor does this passage in the legislative
history expressly say that the capital costs exclusion is limited to
such costs. And, as some commenters recognize, not all capital costs
related to PEG access facilities are related to construction: Studio
equipment, vans, and cameras, often have useful lives of several years,
and the costs of acquiring such equipment are often capitalized. Such
costs therefore often fall within the ordinary meaning of capital
costs. Had Congress wished to exclude such costs, it could have done so
by narrowing the definition of ``capital costs'' in the statute.
38. Consistent with our analysis above, we find that the phrase
``capital costs'' in section 622(g)(2)(C) should be interpreted in a
manner consistent with its ordinary meaning. Based on the definitions
discussed above, the term ``capital cost'' generally would be
understood to mean a cost incurred in acquiring or improving a capital
asset. Because the ordinary meaning of this term is not limited to
construction-related costs, we now find that the definition of
``capital costs'' as used in section 622(g)(2)(C) is not limited to
costs ``incurred in or associated with the construction of PEG access
facilities.'' We conclude that while capital costs include costs
associated with the construction of PEG access facilities, they are not
limited to such costs.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ We agree with NATOA that franchising authorities should be
given an opportunity to show that franchise fees are being spent on
PEG capital costs if a cable operator requests an offset against
franchise fees for non-monetary, cable-related franchise provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. The ordinary meaning of ``capital costs'' could encompass the
acquisition of a non-construction-related capital asset--such as a van
or a camera. Section 622(g)(2)(C) only excludes certain capital costs--
those ``which are required by the franchise to be incurred by the cable
operator for [PEG] access facilities.'' Section 602(16) defines PEG
access facilities as ``channel capacity . . . and facilities and
equipment for the use of such channel capacity.'' In the legislative
history, Congress explains that ``[t]his may include vans, studios,
cameras, or other equipment relating to the use of public, educational,
or governmental channel capacity.'' Based on this statutory language
and legislative history as well as the current record, we believe at
the present time that the definition of ``capital costs'' in section
622(g)(2)(C) includes equipment purchased in connection with PEG access
facilities, even if it is not purchased in conjunction with the
construction of such facilities.\41\ But, as both sections 622(g)(2)(c)
and 602(16) make clear, the capital costs of such equipment may be
excluded only insofar as they are for the use of PEG channel capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ We note that this view was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit in
Alliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. This interpretation seems most faithful to the text of section
622(g)(2)(C), which does not restrict capital costs to those that are
related to construction. We recognize that this interpretation reflects
a broader sense of capital costs than described in the First Report and
Order. To the extent that our interpretation in this document is
inconsistent with the Commission's earlier statements about the capital
cost exclusion, we find that the interpretation in this Order better
comports with the Act's language, structure, and policy objectives.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ NCTA requests that we ``make clear that cable operators
have the right to audit a franchising authority's use of the
contributions and that a franchising authority must provide
reasonable supporting documentation during an audit that such funds
are, or were, being used for PEG capital expenses.'' We decline to
do so. We find nothing in the Act that precludes a cable operator
from auditing an LFA's use of PEG capital funds, nor do we find
anything that gives a cable operator an audit right. We note that
under section 635(b) of the Act, a court may award a cable operator
the right to audit if the court finds that relief appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. We disagree with NCTA's assertion that there would have been
``no good reason'' to grandfather PEG equipment--such as vans and
cameras--if such equipment were ``subject to the permanent exception
from franchise fees under section 622(g)(2)(C).'' The statute itself
fully excludes PEG obligations for franchises in effect on October 30,
1984, but excludes only PEG-related capital costs for franchises
granted after that date. The broader exclusion for existing franchises
in section 622(g)(2)(B) reflects the legislative intent to grandfather
the provisions of existing PEG franchises. Section 622(g)(2)(C)
provides a narrower exclusion for new franchises than the broad
exclusion enjoyed by grandfathered existing franchises; one would
therefore expect these two exclusions to overlap, but not be
coextensive. Even under our interpretation of section 622(g)(2)(C),
section 622(g)(2)(B) remains a much broader exclusion than section
622(g)(2)(C): A number of costs--most notably, operating expenses--
would still be excluded by section 622(g)(2)(B), but not by section
622(g)(2)(C).\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Salaries and training are two examples of operating costs
excluded by section 622(g)(2)(B), but not by section 622(g)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. PEG channel capacity. While we find that the costs associated
with the provision of PEG channel capacity are cable-related, in-kind
costs that fall within the definition of ``franchise fee,'' we find
that the record is insufficiently developed to determine whether such
costs should be excluded from the franchise fee as a capital cost under
the exemption in section 622(g)(2)(C). The Second FNPRM stated that,
while the Act authorizes LFAs to require that channel capacity be
designated for PEG use, this authorization does not necessarily remove
the costs of such obligations from the five percent cap on franchise
fees. In the record in this proceeding, cable operators generally
agreed with this statement, and LFAs generally disagreed. As discussed
above, the Act's authorization of a franchise obligation (e.g., one
related to PEG access facilities or I-Nets) does not remove that
obligation from the five percent cap on franchise fees. It follows,
then, that the costs associated with providing PEG channel capacity
fall within this cap as a cable-related, in-kind contribution unless
they are
[[Page 44734]]
otherwise excluded under section 622(g)(2).\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ One commenter notes that California law requires ``all
video service providers''--a category broader than just cable
providers--to ``designate a sufficient amount of capacity'' for the
provision of PEG channels. Because this requirement applies to more
than just cable operators, commenters argue, it is a fee of
``general applicability'' excluded under section 622(g)(2)(A) from
the definition of franchise fee. The Eastern District of California
recently held that a CPUC fee under the same California law was a
fee of general applicability on these grounds. The Ninth Circuit
recently vacated and remanded this ruling on other grounds. An
assessment aimed only at cable or cable-like services would not fall
within section 622(g)(2)(A)'s exclusion as a ``tax, fee, or
assessment of general applicability.'' The text of section
622(g)(2)(A) of the Cable Act identifies a ``tax, fee, or assessment
imposed on both utilities and cable operators or their services'' as
a paradigmatic example of an assessment of ``general
applicability.'' The legislative history further explains that an
assessment of ``general applicability'' ``could include such
payments as a general sales tax, an entertainment tax imposed on
other entertainment business as well as the cable operator, and
utility taxes or utility user taxes which, while they may
differentiate the rates charged to different types of utilities, do
not unduly discriminate against the cable operator as to effectively
constitute a tax directed at the cable system.'' Here, the provision
of PEG capacity appears to be an obligation specific to cable
operators--the California law itself references the provision of PEG
capacity by ``cable operator[s].'' We also note that the PEG
authority provided in section 611 only applies to cable service, and
that there are no PEG requirements under federal law for other video
providers, like Direct Broadcast Service (DBS) or over-the-top
streaming services. In any case, we need not settle the question
whether a specific state law is of general applicability to
determine whether the provision of PEG capacity, in general, falls
within the definition of ``franchise fee.'' Accordingly, we decline
to do so here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. LFAs claim that the costs of providing PEG channel capacity do
fall within section 622(g)(2)(C)'s exclusion for PEG-related capital
costs. In support, they point out that the Act defines ``[PEG] access
facilities'' as ``(A) channel capacity designated for public,
educational, or governmental use; and (B) facilities and equipment for
the use of such channel capacity.'' Thus, they assert, because section
622(g)(2)(C) expressly applies to costs incurred by a cable operator
for ``[PEG] access facilities,'' it necessarily applies to costs
associated with PEG channel capacity. But, as the cable operators
state, the Act's inclusion of channel capacity in the definition of
``[PEG] access facilities'' does not settle the question of whether
channel capacity costs fall under section 622(g)(2)(C). This is because
section 622(g)(2)(C) excludes only a particular subset of PEG access
facility costs--capital costs--from the definition of franchise fees
subject to the five percent cap, and cable operators claim that PEG
channel capacity is not a capital cost. Moreover, even assuming that
PEG channel capacity is not a capital cost and is therefore subject to
the five percent cap, the record reveals serious difficulties regarding
how to calculate the value of PEG channel capacity to account for this
cost.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ NCTA proposes valuing channel capacity at market cost;
anything less, NCTA argues, would be an additional subsidy beyond
the cost of the service itself. LFAs raise a host of problems with
using the fair market value approach to value channel capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
44. Given this, we find that the questions raised by channel
capacity are complex, and that the record is not developed enough to
allow us to answer them. We therefore defer this issue for further
consideration.\46\ In the meantime, we find that the status quo should
be maintained, and that channel capacity costs should not be offset
against the franchise fee cap. This approach will minimize disruption
and provide predictability to both local franchise authorities and
cable operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ We encourage parties to supplement the record on the
channel capacity issue. To the extent that we are provided
sufficient information to answer the complex questions raised by
channel capacity, we intend to resolve them in the next twelve
months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
45. Limits on LFA Authority To Establish PEG Requirements. While we
do not reach a conclusion with respect to the treatment of PEG channel
capacity, we reiterate here that sections 611(a) and 621(a)(4)(B) of
the Act restrict the authority of LFAs to establish PEG channel
capacity requirements. We discussed the limits imposed by section
611(a) in the First Report and Order. We noted that, while section
611(b) does not place a limit on the amount of channel capacity that a
franchising authority may require, section 621(a)(4)(b) provides that a
franchising authority may require ``adequate assurance'' that the cable
operator will provide ``adequate'' PEG access channel capacity,
facilities, or financial support. We determined that ``adequate,'' as
used in the statute, should be given its ordinary meaning--
``satisfactory or sufficient.''
46. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission again discussed the limits
on franchising authority requirements for PEG channels under section
611(b), identifying PEG channel capacity as an in-kind contribution and
seeking comment on the effects on cable operators and cable subscribers
of ``allowing LFAs to seek unlimited'' PEG operating support and other
cable-related, in-kind contributions. In response, commenters submitted
examples of what they claim are LFA requirements for excessive numbers
of PEG channels. LFAs responded with comments defending such
requirements, as well as requirements for associated PEG support.
47. We note that many states have attempted to strike a balance
between the costs of PEG channels to cable operators and the benefits
of PEG channels to the public by imposing reasonable limits on PEG
channel capacity. For example, some states have limited the number of
PEG channels--typically to two or three. Others have required that PEG
channels be returned if they are not substantially used. States have
also tied the number of appropriate PEG channels to the size of the
population served.
48. We decline the invitation by cable operators to establish fixed
rules as to what constitutes ``adequate'' PEG channel capacity under
section 621(a)(4)(B).\47\ We recognize that the number of channels
necessary to further the goals of the Cable Act might vary depending
on, among other things, the number of subscribers within a franchise,
the area covered by a franchise, the number of cable operators within a
franchise, the area's population and geography, the cable-related
community needs and interests, and whether PEG channel capacity is
substantially used. In general, each of these factors is relevant in
determining whether an LFA has exceeded its authority under section
621(a)(4)(B) by demanding more than ``adequate'' capacity.\48\ We note
that LFA demands for PEG capacity requirements that are more than
``adequate'' are subject to judicial challenge under section 635 of the
Act, as well as other forms of relief. We also reserve the right to
establish fixed rules in the future should there be widespread evidence
of LFAs requiring more than adequate PEG channel capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ As noted, the Commission concluded that ``adequate'' should
be given its plain meaning, ``satisfactory or sufficient'' in the
First Report and Order. The Sixth Circuit affirmed this
interpretation.
\48\ LFAs argue that relying on the section 621 ``adequate''
standard conflicts with the standards established by section 626 in
the context of franchise renewals, which generally ask whether a
renewal proposal is reasonable to meet the ``needs and interests''
of the community. We see no such conflict. Section 621 establishes
``General Franchise Requirements,'' and nothing in section 626
suggests that these general limits do not apply in the context of a
franchise renewal. As NCTA points out, to find that franchise
renewals are constrained only by section 626's ``needs and
interests'' inquiry would mean, among other things, that franchise
renewals would be unconstrained by the statutory cap on franchise
fees in section 622.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
49. PEG transport. We find that the installation of transport
facilities dedicated for long-term use by a PEG provider for the
transmittal of recurring programming to a cable headend or other point
in the cable system--PEG transport--does not count toward the
[[Page 44735]]
five percent franchise fee cap. For the reasons explained above, we
find that exempting capital costs from the five percent cap is
consistent with the Act. The expenditure for the installation of a
system that carries PEG programming from a PEG studio to a cable
operator's headend facility is a capital expenditure because it is a
long-term asset meant to deliver the programming. The ongoing costs
associated with the maintenance or operation of that facility would not
qualify as a capital expenditure, however, as these are operating costs
that are necessary to run the business and produce output. NCTA
requests that we declare PEG transport costs beyond ``a single PEG
transport return line [that] is dedicated to connecting the PEG studio
to the cable network or headend'' to count toward the five percent cap.
Although we agree that the costs associated with the use of transport
lines for ``episodic'' or ``short-term'' PEG programming is an
operating cost that is subject to the franchise fee cap, we decline to
establish a fixed quantity of PEG transport return lines that is
``adequate'' under section 621(a)(4)(B).\49\ Like the number of PEG
channels on a system, the number of adequate return lines in a
franchise area might vary according to particular circumstances like
the number of subscribers in the franchise area, the area covered by
the franchise and the number of cable operators in the franchise. The
number also might vary depending on the number of PEG channels provided
in a franchise area and the types of programming offered over them.
Nevertheless, any LFA requests for multiple transport connections
dedicated for long-term PEG use that the cable operator considers to be
more than ``adequate'' are subject to judicial challenge under section
635 of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ We note, however, that NCTA cites a particularly egregious
example of a ``transport line [that] is used once a year for a
Halloween parade'' that seems well beyond what constitutes adequate
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
50. We acknowledge the benefits of PEG programming and find that
our interpretations adopted above are faithful to the policy objectives
of the Cable Act. A significant number of comments in the record
stressed these benefits, which include providing access to the
legislative process of the local governments, reporting on local
issues, providing a forum for local candidates for office, and
providing a platform for local communities--including minority
communities. Of course, Congress itself similarly recognized the
importance of PEG programming by authorizing LFAs to require the
provision of PEG channel capacity in the Cable Act, and by carving out
certain costs of such programming from the five percent cap on
franchise fees. Nothing in this proceeding disturbs the Commission's
longstanding view that PEG programming serves an important role in
local communities.
51. At the same time, the Cable Act seeks to encourage deployment
and competition by limiting the franchise fees that LFAs may collect.
These include limitations on imposing costs associated with the
provision of PEG programming. A number of cable operators express
concern with excessive LFA requirements for PEG channel capacity,
support, and in-kind contributions. Altice, for example, notes that
``PEG operational contributions . . . are common and routinely treated
as separate from the 5 percent franchise fee.'' Commenters likewise
suggest that these excessive PEG-related demands can hinder competition
and deployment.
52. The Cable Act itself, as interpreted in this Order, balances
these costs and benefits. By excluding PEG-related capital costs from
the five percent cap on franchise fees, but leaving other PEG-related
exactions subject to that cap, the Cable Act divides the financial
burden of supporting PEG programming between LFAs and cable operators.
By counting a portion of these costs against the statutory cap on
franchise fees that LFAs may collect, the Cable Act allows LFAs to seek
support for PEG programming from cable operators, while guarding
against the possibility that LFAs will make demands for such
programming without regard to cost.
53. Some commenters have suggested that the proposals in the Second
FNPRM threaten to eliminate or drastically reduce PEG programming.\50\
We disagree. Significantly, any adverse impact of our ruling on PEG
programming should be mitigated by (1) the expansion of the ``capital
cost'' exclusion beyond merely capital costs associated with
construction; and (2) our decision to defer ruling on whether the costs
of channel capacity may be counted under this exclusion.\51\ Under the
interpretation adopted in this Order, cable operators will continue to
provide support where an LFA chooses, but some aspects of that support
will now be properly counted against the statutory five percent
franchise fee cap, as Congress intended.\52\ We recognize that this
represents a departure from the longstanding treatment of PEG costs by
LFAs and cable operators. We do not, however, believe that these
conclusions will eliminate PEG programming. Nor do we believe that the
existing practice was lawful merely because it was longstanding: the
Commission's duty is to conform its rules to law, not tradition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ This concern was also expressed in a number of letters from
members of Congress.
\51\ NATOA et al. say that these aspects of our decision will
not have a mitigating impact on the availability of PEG programming.
They suggest that this Order ``is not a boon to LFAs'' because it
was already clear that both construction-related and non-
construction-related PEG equipment costs are exempt from the
franchise fee cap. This is incorrect. As we explain above, the scope
of the PEG capital cost exemption previously was left unsettled.
This Order clarifies that issue by finding that equipment costs
unrelated to construction may be considered capital costs for
purposes of section 622(g)(2)(C).
\52\ Finally, a number of commenters argue that PEG requirements
confer a benefit on the community, like buildout requirements, and
therefore should similarly not be considered a ``contribution'' to
LFAs. We find that PEG requirements are distinguishable from
buildout requirements for the reasons discussed below. PEG
requirements, unlike buildout requirements, are also specifically
discussed in the definition of franchise fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
54. To the extent that existing practices are inconsistent with the
law, LFAs will still have a choice: they can continue to receive
monetary franchise payments up to the five percent cap, they can
continue to receive their existing PEG support and reduce the monetary
payments they receive, or they can negotiate for a reduction of both
that fits within the bounds of the law that Congress adopted.
55. We find that the costs associated with the construction,
maintenance, and service of an I-Net fall within the five percent cap
on franchise fees. Such costs are cable-related, in-kind contributions
that meet the definition of franchise fee. In particular, agreeing to
construct, maintain, and provide I-Net service pursuant to the terms of
a franchise agreement is necessarily cable-related, is an in-kind
(i.e., non-monetary) contribution imposed on a cable operator by a
franchise authority, and is not included in one of the enumerated
exceptions from the franchise fee in section 622(g)(2) of the Act.
Thus, we believe that including such services in the franchise fee is
consistent with the statute. As we tentatively concluded in the Second
FNPRM, treating cable-related, in-kind contributions, such as I-Net
requirements, as franchise fees would not undermine provisions in the
Act that authorize or require LFAs to impose cable-related obligations
on franchisees. We disagree with LFA commenters who argue that the cost
of I-Nets should be excluded from the franchise fee. Although such
commenters contend that ``[t]he Commission's proposal to
[[Page 44736]]
require LFAs to pay for I-Nets . . . cannot be squared with the
statute,'' it is entirely consistent with the statute to find that
franchising authorities may impose cable-related requirements, such as
requiring dedicated channel capacity on I-Nets, on cable operators, but
also to find that funding for these franchise requirements applies
against the five percent cap. Similar to our conclusion with respect to
PEG support, while we acknowledge that I-Nets provide benefits to
communities,\53\ such benefits cannot override the statutory framework,
which carves out only limited exclusions from franchise fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Anne Arundel County et al. contend that the obligation to
provide I-Nets ``benefits not only the public, but also the cable
operator, who is in a position to sell commercial services via I-
Nets,'' and they argue that the Commission ``offers no explanation
as to how such a mutually beneficial arrangement constitutes a
tax.'' However, it is unclear from the record to what extent, if
any, cable operators benefit from providing I-Nets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
56. Further, as we conclude above, we disagree with commenters that
section 611(b) of the Act, which authorizes LFAs to require that
channel capacity on I-Nets be designated for educational and
governmental use, should be interpreted to exempt the costs of I-Nets
from franchise fees. There is no basis in the statutory text for
concluding that section 611(b) imposes any limit on the definition of
franchise fee. Moreover, section 622(g) defines what is included in the
franchise fee, and section 622(g)(2) carves out only limited exclusions
for PEG-related costs and does not exclude I-Net-related costs. As we
observe above, since Congress enacted the PEG and I-Net provisions at
the same time it added the franchise fee provisions, it could have
explicitly excluded all costs related to I-Nets if it had intended they
not count toward the cap.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Anne Arundel County et al. suggests that our interpretation
of the statute as it relates to I-Nets is somehow inconsistent with
the Commission's holding in a 1996 open video systems order.
Contrary to Anne Arundel County et al.'s assertion, the Commission
did not conclude in the OVS Order that I-Nets were meant to be
excluded from the franchise fee. Rather, that order affirmed the
Commission's decision to preclude local franchising authorities from
requiring open video system operators to build I-Nets, while also
clarifying that this decision is not inconsistent with permitting
the local franchising authority to require channel capacity on a
network if an open video system operator does build one. As we
explain above, it is entirely consistent with the statute to find
that franchising authorities may impose cable-related requirements,
such as requiring dedicated channel capacity on I-Nets, but also to
find that funding for these requirements applies against the five
percent cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
57. We conclude that franchise terms that require cable operators
to build their systems to cover certain localities in a franchise area
do not count toward the five percent cap.\55\ As we explain herein,
Title VI establishes a framework that reflects a fundamental bargain
between the cable authority and franchising authority--a cable operator
may apply for and obtain a franchise to construct and operate
facilities in the local rights-of-way and, in exchange, an LFA may
impose fees and other requirements as set forth in the Act. The
statutory framework makes clear that the authority to construct a cable
system is granted to the cable operator as part of this bargain and
that the costs of such construction are to be borne by the cable
operator. Specifically, section 621(a)(2)(B) of the Act provides that
``[a]ny franchise shall be construed to authorize the construction of a
cable system over public rights-of-way, and through easements, . . .
except that in using such easements the cable operator shall ensure . .
. that the cost of the installation, construction, operation, or
removal of such facilities be borne by the cable operator or
subscriber, or a combination of both.'' Because the statute is clear
that cable operators, not LFAs, are responsible for the cost of
building out cable systems, it would be inconsistent with the statutory
text and structure to count these costs as part of the franchise
fee.\56\ Both cable industry and LFA commenters generally support the
contention that build-out obligations should not count toward the five
percent franchise fee cap.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Build-out requirements are requirements that a franchisee
expand cable service to parts or all of the franchise area within a
specified period of time.
\56\ Because the statute is clear with regard to cable operator
responsibility for construction costs, we reject ACA's argument that
``build-out obligations should only be excluded [from the franchise
fee] to the extent an LFA needs to meet its obligation under
paragraph 621(a)(3)'' 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.
\57\ While some LFA commenters disagree with distinguishing
between build-out obligations and other cable-related contributions
such as PEG and I-Net support based on which entities receive the
benefit of such obligations or whether such obligations can be
considered ``essential'' to the provision of cable services, because
we have clarified the rationale for excluding build-out obligations,
we do not need to address these arguments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
58. We also conclude that franchise terms that require cable
operators to comply with customer service standards do not count toward
the five percent cap.\58\ LFA commenters explain that cable operators
are required to comply with customer service standards under federal or
state law, and that cable franchises may include an obligation to
comply with customer service standards. Notably, section 632 of the Act
directs the Commission to ``establish standards by which cable
operators may fulfill their customer service requirements,'' including
``at a minimum, requirements governing--(1) cable system office hours
and telephone availability; (2) installations, outages, and service
calls; and (3) communications between the cable operator and the
subscriber (including standards governing bills and refunds.'' The
Commission implemented this mandate in Sec. 76.309 of its rules, which
sets forth with specificity the customer service standards to which
cable operators are required to adhere relating to cable system office
hours and telephone availability, installations, outages and service
calls, and communications between cable operators and cable
subscribers. We find that franchise terms that require cable operators
to adhere to customer service standards are not part of the franchise
fee. In contrast to in-kind, cable-related contributions that are
franchise fees subject to the statutory cap, such as the provision of
free cable service to government buildings or PEG and I-Net
support,\59\ customer service obligations are not a ``tax, fee, or
assessment'' imposed on a cable operator; they are regulatory standards
that govern how cable operators are available to and communicate with
customers. Indeed, as the legislative history explains, ``[i]n general,
customer service means the direct business relation between a cable
operator and a subscriber,'' and ``customer service requirements
include requirements related to interruption of service; disconnection;
rebates and credits to consumers; deadlines to respond to consumer
requests or complaints the location of the cable operator's consumer
service offices; and the provision to customers (or potential
customers) of information on billing or services.'' Based on our review
of the statutory text and legislative history, we find no indication
that Congress intended that standards governing a cable operator's
``direct business relation'' with its subscribers should count toward
the franchise fee cap. Apart from ACA, no commenter argued
[[Page 44737]]
that customer service obligations should be included as franchise
fees.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ In the Second FNPRM, we sought comment on whether there are
other requirements besides build-out requirements that should not be
considered contributions to an LFA.
\59\ We clarify that if LFAs request build-out to an area that
includes a public building, we would consider that to be a build-out
requirement that is not subject to the franchise fee. However, we
note that our conclusion with respect to build-out and customer
service requirements is entirely separate from our findings
regarding the provision of free or discounted services to public
buildings and the provision of I-Net services. I-Net services as
well as free or discounted services to public buildings are counted
toward the franchise fee for the reasons explained above.
\60\ For the reasons discussed above, we disagree with ACA that
the costs of complying with mandated customer service standards
should be counted toward the franchise fee cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
59. As we explain in this section, we conclude that cable-related,
in-kind contributions will count toward the five percent franchise fee
cap at their fair market value. Because we conclude above that most
cable related, in-kind contributions must be included in the franchise
fee, cable operators and LFAs must assign a value to them. In our prior
rulemakings, we did not provide guidance on how to value such
contributions, but in the Second FNPRM, the Commission recognized that
cable-related contributions could count toward the franchise fee cap at
cost or at fair market value, and proposed to count toward the
franchise fee cap at their fair market value.
60. Most critiques of applying fair market valuation in this
context challenge how it could be applied to PEG channel capacity. But,
as discussed above, we have not yet determined whether to assign the
value of PEG channel capacity contributions toward the five percent
franchise fee cap, and therefore we do not need to address these
arguments.
61. We must address the value of other in-kind contributions,
however, including free service to public buildings and I-Net
contributions. We believe that fair market value, where there is a
product in the market,\61\ is the most reasonable valuation for in-kind
contributions because it is easy to ascertain--cable operators have
rate cards to set the rates that they charge customers for the services
that they offer. Moreover, a fair market valuation ``reflects the fact
that, if a franchising authority did not require an in-kind assessment
as part of its franchise, it would have no choice but to pay the market
rate for services it needs from the cable operator or another
provider.'' \62\ In contrast, valuing these in-kind contributions at
cost would ``shift the true cost of an exaction from their taxpayer
base at large to the smaller subset of taxpayers who are also cable
subscribers.'' As we note above, Congress adopted a broad definition of
franchise fee to limit the amount that LFAs may exact from cable
operators. Accordingly, we conclude that a fair market valuation for
in-kind contribution best adheres to Congressional intent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ We note that certain business or enterprise services may be
comparable to I-Nets.
\62\ This demonstrates the flaw in NATOA et al.'s argument that
we must provide guidance on how to calculate fair market value. If
the LFA believes that the cable operator's proposed valuation is too
high, the LFA is free to forgo the in-kind contribution, accept a
monetary franchise fee payment, and use the funds it received to
purchase the good or service in the competitive marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
62. The franchise fee rulings we adopt in this Order are
prospective. Thus, cable operators may count only ongoing and future
in-kind contributions toward the five percent franchise fee cap after
the Order is effective. There is broad record support for applying the
rulings prospectively; no commenter argues that our rulings should
apply retroactively to allow cable operators to recoup past payments
that exceed the five percent franchise fee cap. To the extent a
franchise agreement that is currently in place conflicts with this
Order, we encourage the parties to negotiate franchise modifications
within a reasonable time.\63\ If a franchising authority refuses to
modify any provision of a franchise agreement that is inconsistent with
this Order, that provision is subject to preemption under section
636(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ The City Coalition proposes that the parties should modify
their franchises to comply with this Order via the franchise
modification process set forth in section 625 of the Act. Under
those procedures, an LFA has 120 days to make a final decision about
a cable operator's request to modify a franchise agreement. We do
not adopt this framework, however, because as NCTA points out, the
parties may not modify PEG requirements under section 625, and
therefore cable operators and LFAs could not use that procedure to
bring franchise agreements into compliance in every case. Therefore,
we encourage the parties to negotiate franchise modifications within
a reasonable time and find that 120 days should be, in most cases, a
reasonable time for the adoption of franchise modifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
63. Many LFAs express concern that our rulings could disrupt their
budgets, which rely upon the franchise fees that they expect to
receive. It is by no means clear from the record what fiscal choices
remain available to the LFAs, but in any event, delaying the effect of
our decision to address this concern would not be consistent with the
statutory text. It is strongly in the public interest to prevent the
harms from existing franchise agreements to continue for years until
those agreements expire. In addition, the changes we adopt in this
document were reasonably foreseeable because we largely adopt the
tentative conclusions set forth in the Second FNPRM.\64\ Finally, we
note that LFAs can continue to benefit from their agreements by
choosing to continue to receive their existing in-kind contributions,
while reducing the monetary payments they receive.\65\ Thus, consistent
with the Act, we apply our rulings to future contributions cable
operators make pursuant to existing franchise agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Indeed, the lawfulness of excluding costs associated with
PEG/I-Nets from the franchise fee cap has been under Commission
scrutiny for more than a decade, and in 2008, the Sixth Circuit
affirmed the Commission's determination as to new entrants that PEG
related costs which do not qualify as capital costs are subject to
the franchise fee cap. Therefore, we find Anne Arundel County's
argument that this ``decision represents [an] `unexpected
surprise''' to be unfounded.
\65\ Take, for example, a franchise agreement that requires a
cable operator to deliver free cable service to all municipal
buildings and contribute a monetary payment of five percent of its
gross revenues derived from the operation of its cable system to
provide cable services. In that case, the LFA may wish to either (1)
continue to receive the existing free cable service and a monetary
payment of five percent minus the fair market value of that service,
or (2) discontinue service and receive a monetary payment of five
percent, or (3) reduce the free cable service to select municipal
buildings and receive a monetary payment of the five percent minus
the fair market value of the reduced service. However, what an LFA
may not do is ask a cable operator to ``voluntarily'' waive the
statutory cap by asking it to continue providing free cable service
to all municipal buildings and contribute the five percent monetary
payment, or request that a cable operator waive anything else under
the statute as interpreted by the Commission. Accordingly, we reject
the request of NATOA that we clarify that this Order ``is permissive
not mandatory.'' Complying with the terms of the statute is not
optional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
64. In this section, we address the second issue remanded from the
Sixth Circuit in Montgomery County, which relates to the Commission's
mixed-use rule. As explained above, the court in Montgomery County
found that the Commission, in its Second Report and Order and Order on
Reconsideration, failed to identify a valid statutory basis for its
application of the mixed-use rule to incumbent cable operators because
the statutory provision on which the Commission relied to do so--
section 602(7)(C) of the Act--applies by its terms only to Title II
carriers, and ``many incumbent cable operators are not Title II
carriers.'' The court thus vacated and remanded the mixed-use rule as
applied to those cable operators, directing the Commission ``to set
forth a valid statutory basis . . . for the rule as so applied.'' For
the reasons set forth below, we adopt our tentative conclusion that the
mixed-use rule prohibits LFAs from regulating under Title VI the
provision of any services other than cable services offered over the
cable systems of incumbent cable operators, except as expressly
permitted in the Act.
65. Our conclusions regarding the scope of LFAs' authority to
regulate incumbent cable operators' non-cable services, facilities, and
equipment follow from the statutory scheme. Congress in Title VI
intended, among other things, to circumscribe the ability of
franchising authorities to use their Title VI authority to regulate
non-cable services provided over the cable systems
[[Page 44738]]
of cable operators and the facilities and equipment used to provide
those services. As explained below, the legislative history of the 1984
Cable Act and subsequent amendments to Title VI reflect Congress's
recognition that cable operators potentially could compete with local
telephone companies in the provision of telecommunications service and
its intent to maintain the then-existing status quo concerning
regulatory jurisdiction over cable operators' non-cable services,
facilities, and equipment. Under the status quo, regulation of non-
cable services provided over cable systems, including
telecommunications and information services, was the exclusive province
of either the Commission or state public utility commissions.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Specifically, the Commission historically has had
jurisdiction over interstate telecommunications and information
services. States have had jurisdiction over intrastate
telecommunications services but not information services, which are
jurisdictionally interstate. We thus reject the City of Eugene's
suggestion that maintaining the ``status quo'' supports broad state
and local authority over non-cable services provided via cable
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
66. The Mixed-Use Rule Prohibits LFAs From Regulating Under Title
VI the Non-Cable Services, Facilities, and Equipment of Incumbent Cable
Operators That Are Also Common Carriers. As an initial matter, we
reaffirm the Commission's application of the mixed-use rule to prohibit
LFAs from using their cable franchising authority to regulate any
services other than cable services provided over the cable systems of
any incumbent cable operator that is a common carrier,\67\ with the
exception of channel capacity on I-Nets.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ ``Non-cable'' services offered by cable operators include
telecommunications services and non-telecommunications services.
Telecommunications services offered by cable operators include, for
example, business data services, which enable dedicated point-to-
point transmission of data at certain guaranteed speeds and service
levels using high-capacity connections, and wireless
telecommunications services. Non-telecommunications services offered
by cable operators include, but are not limited to, information
services (such as broadband internet access services), private
carrier services (such as certain types of business data services),
and Wi-Fi services. Cable operators also may offer facilities-based
interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service, which
the Commission has not classified as either a telecommunications
service or an information service, but which is not a cable service.
\68\ Nothing in this Order is intended to limit LFAs' express
authority under section 611(b) of the Act to require I-Net capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
67. As noted above, the Commission in the First Report and Order
found that the then-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, in violation
of section 621(a)(1) of the Act. The Commission adopted the mixed-use
rule with respect to new entrants to address this unreasonable barrier.
It provides, in relevant part that LFAs' jurisdiction applies only to
the provision of cable services over cable systems. In particular, to
the extent a cable operator provides non-cable services and/or operates
facilities that do not qualify as a cable system, it is unreasonable
for an LFA to refuse to award a franchise based on issues related to
such services or facilities. For example, an LFA may not use its video
franchising authority to attempt to regulate an entire network beyond
the provision of cable services.
68. The Commission in the Second Report and Order extended to
incumbent cable operators several rules adopted in the First Report and
Order, including the mixed-use rule. Although, as noted, the Sixth
Circuit in Montgomery County vacated and remanded the Commission's
application of the mixed-use rule with respect to incumbent cable
operators that are not common carriers, it left undisturbed application
of the rule to incumbent cable operators that are also common
carriers.\69\ Consistent with the court's ruling, therefore, we adopt
our tentative conclusion and reaffirm that the mixed-use rule prohibits
LFAs from regulating the provision of non-cable services offered over
the cable systems of incumbent cable operators that are common
carriers.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ 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, to the extent that an incumbent
cable operator provides telecommunications service, it would be
treated as a common carrier subject to Title II of the Act with
respect to its provision of such telecommunications service.
\70\ NCTA asserts that many cable operators currently provide
telecommunications services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
69. Our interpretation is consistent with the text of section
602(7)(C), which 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.'' We are not persuaded by
assertions to the contrary. Anne Arundel County et al. argues, for
example, that a cable operator's provision of telecommunications
services via its cable system (either directly or through a subsidiary)
``does not . . . suddenly [transform its cable system] into a Title II
facility'' for purposes of applying the section 602(7)(C) common
carrier exception. City of Philadelphia et al. similarly argues that
the common carrier exception in section 602(7)(C) was meant to protect
Title II common carriers from regulation by LFAs under their Title VI
franchising authority and thus cannot reasonably be read to apply to
any cable operator that provides Title II and other non-cable services
over a system that is a cable system.
70. To the extent these commenters argue that section 602(7)(C)
precludes LFAs only from regulating non-cable services provided over
the facilities of incumbent local exchange carriers that subsequently
begin to provide cable service, we find such argument is not supported
by the language of the statute. As noted in the Second FNPRM, although
new entrants into the cable services market may confront obstacles
different from those of incumbent cable operators, the statute makes no
distinction between these types of providers. In the absence of any
textual basis for treating incumbent cable operators that provide
telecommunications services differently from new entrants that do so,
we conclude that a facility should be categorized as ``a facility of a
common carrier'' under section 602(7)(C) so long as it is being used to
provide some type of telecommunications service, irrespective of
whether the facility was originally deployed by a provider that
historically was treated as a ``common carrier.''
71. This interpretation also is consistent with the legislative
history of the 1984 Cable Act. Although, as City of Philadelphia et al.
points out, one of the concerns expressed in the legislative history
was the potential that cable operators' provision of telecommunications
services could enable large users of such services to bypass the local
telephone companies and thereby threaten universal service, the
legislative history also reflects Congressional recognition that
``ultimately, local telephone companies and cable companies could
compete in all communications services.'' The legislative history
clarifies, moreover, that Congress intended the 1984 Cable Act to
``maintain[] [then-]existing regulatory authority over all . . .
communications services offered by a cable system, including . . .
services that could compete with communications services offered by
telephone companies.'' Indeed, the legislative history is replete with
statements reflecting Congress's intent to preserve the then-status quo
regarding the ability of federal, state, and local authorities to
regulate non-cable services provided via cable systems. In light of its
stated intention to maintain the jurisdictional status quo,
[[Page 44739]]
we find that Congress intended via section 602(7)(C) to preclude LFAs
from regulating under Title VI the provision of telecommunications
services by incumbent cable operators, services that historically have
been within the exclusive purview of the Commission (with respect to
interstate services) or state public utility commissions (with respect
to intrastate services).\71\ Moreover, section 602(7)(C) broadly states
that, with narrow exceptions, the facility of a common carrier is only
``considered a cable system to the extent such facility is used in the
transmission of video programming directly to subscribers,'' and
therefore not with respect to provision of any other services. For
these reasons, we see no basis for altering our previous conclusion, as
upheld by the Sixth Circuit,\72\ that the mixed-use rule prohibits LFAs
from exercising their Title VI authority to regulate the provision of
non-cable services provided via the cable systems of incumbent cable
operators that are common carriers, except as otherwise provided in the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ This interpretation is reinforced by both the text of
section 621(b)(3) of the Act and its legislative history (relating
to the provision of telecommunications services by cable operators),
which Congress added to Title VI through the Telecommunications Act
of 1996. The fact that section 621(b)(3) seeks to protect incumbent
cable operators from LFA regulation under Title VI when they provide
certain non-cable services, i.e., telecommunications services,
further undermines LFAs' assertion that the common carrier exception
in section 602(7)(C) was intended to shield from LFA regulation only
the provision of non-cable services by new entrants.
\72\ Certain LFA advocates appear to concede that the Act
precludes LFAs from regulating under Title VI a cable operator's
provision of telecommunications services via its cable system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
72. The Mixed-Use Rule Prohibits LFAs From Regulating Under Title
VI the Non-Cable Services, Facilities, and Equipment of Incumbent Cable
Operators That Are Not Common Carriers. We also adopt our tentative
conclusion that LFAs are precluded from using their Title VI
franchising authority to regulate the non-cable services (e.g.,
information services such as broadband internet access) of incumbent
cable operators that do not provide telecommunications services. As
directed by the court, we explain herein our statutory bases for
concluding that LFAs lack authority under Title VI to regulate non-
cable services of incumbent cable operators that do not provide
telecommunications services.
73. Section 624 of the Act, which principally governs franchising
authority regulation of services, facilities, and equipment, provides
in subsection (a) that ``[a] franchising authority may not regulate the
services, facilities, and equipment provided by a cable operator except
to the extent consistent with [Title VI of the Act].'' \73\ The
subsequent provision, section 624(b)(1), provides that franchising
authorities ``may not . . . establish requirements for video
programming or other information services.'' \74\ Although the term
``information service'' is not defined in section 624, the legislative
history of that provision distinguishes ``information service'' from
``cable service.'' In particular, the legislative history explains 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 allows
transactions between subscribers and cable operators or third
parties.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ 47 U.S.C. 544(a).
\74\ While the preamble to section 624(b) specifically limits
the provision to franchises ``granted after the effective date of
this title'' and therefore appears to grandfather local regulation
of information services that may have occurred prior to 1984, when
Title VI took effect, we note that very few franchises in effect
today were granted prior to that year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
74. We find significant that the description of the term
``information services'' in the 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'') aligns closely with the
1996 Telecommunications Act's definition of ``information service''
codified 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''). We conclude, therefore, that for purposes of
applying section 624(b), interpreting the term ``information services''
to have the meaning set forth in section 3(24) of the Act is most
consistent with Congressional intent.\75\ Because the Commission has
determined that broadband internet access service is an ``information
service'' under section 3(24),\76\ we likewise find that section
624(b)(1) precludes LFAs from regulating broadband internet access
provided via the cable systems of incumbent cable operators that are
not common carriers. Moreover, even if the definition set forth in
section 3(24) was not the intended definition of ``information
services'' for purposes of section 624(b)(1), the highly analogous
descriptions of this term in the legislative history of the 1984 Act
also would apply to broadband internet access service. Thus, in either
case, LFAs may not lawfully impose fees for the provision of
information services (such as broadband internet access) via a
franchised cable system or require a franchise (or other authorization)
for the provision of information services via such cable system.\77\ We
also clarify that LFAs and other state and local governmental units
cannot impose additional requirements on mixed-use ``cable systems'' in
a manner inconsistent with this Order and the Act under the pretense
that they are merely regulating facilities and equipment rather than
information services.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ The fact that the ``information services'' definition in
section 3(24) of the Act was enacted as part of the 1996 Act--more
than ten years after Congress passed section 624(b)--supports our
conclusion that LFAs lack authority under section 624(b)(1) to
regulate information services. The absence in Title VI of specific
references to the section 3(24) definition of ``information
service'' suggests only that Congress, in passing the 1996 Act, did
not wish to re-open the 1984 Cable Act; it does not indicate that
Congress intended to grant LFAs general authority to regulate
information services.
\76\ The Commission in 2018 reinstated the ``information
service'' classification of broadband internet access service.
\77\ Application of the mixed-use rule to broadband internet
access service is not tied to the Commission's classification of
broadband as an information service. Under the Commission's prior
conclusion in 2015 that broadband internet access service is a Title
II telecommunications service, the mixed-use rule would apply based
on the provisions of Title VI for the reasons explained above.
\78\ For this reason, we reject assertions that section 624's
grant of authority to ``establish'' and ``enforce'' certain
requirements for facilities and equipment would permit LFAs to
bypass the statutory prohibition on regulation of information
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
75. Although we recognize that a later provision, section
624(b)(2)(B), permits franchising authorities to enforce requirements
for ``broad categories of video programming or other services,'' when
read together with the specific injunction against regulation of
``information services'' in section 624(b)(1), we find that it would be
unreasonable to construe section 624(b)(2)(B) as authorizing LFA
regulation of information services when (b)(1) precludes franchising
authorities from regulating such services.\79\ As we noted in the
Second FNPRM, the legislative history explains that section 624(b)(2)'s
grant of authority ``to enforce
[[Page 44740]]
requirements . . . for broad categories of video programming or other
services'' was intended merely to ``assure[] the franchising authority
that commitments made in an arms-length situation will be met,'' while
protecting the cable operator from ``being forced to provide specific
programming or items of value which are not utilized in the operation
of the cable system.'' Reading these provisions together, it is
apparent that Congress intended to permit LFAs to enforce franchise
requirements governing ``other services'' under (b)(2), but only to the
extent they are otherwise permitted to establish such requirements
under (b)(1).\80\ Because LFAs lack authority to regulate information
services under section 624(b)(1), they may not lawfully enforce
provisions of a franchise agreement permitting such regulation under
section 624(b)(2), even if such provisions resulted from arms-length
negotiations between the cable operator and LFA.\81\ That is, the grant
of authority to ``enforce'' certain requirements under section
624(b)(2)(B) does not give franchising authorities an independent right
to impose requirements that they otherwise may not ``establish'' under
section 624(b)(1). We thus reject claims to the contrary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ We note further that the limitation on the ability of
franchising authorities to establish requirements under section
624(b)(1) extends specifically to ``information services,'' whereas
the authority granted to franchising authorities in section
624(b)(2) makes no mention of ``information services.''
\80\ Although the legislative history provides examples of
``broad categories of video programming,'' it does not specify what
services are encompassed within the phrase ``other services'' for
purposes of applying section 624(b)(2)(B). Although the phrase
``other services'' is ambiguous, it would be unreasonable to
conclude that Congress intended for it to include services, such as
information services, that franchising authorities are not empowered
to regulate under section 624. Rather, we find it more reasonable to
construe the phrase as referring to services that franchising
authorities lawfully could require under Title VI, such as the
provision of PEG channels and I-Net capacity. We, therefore, reject
Anne Arundel County et al.'s assertion that the term ``other
service'' in section 624(b)(2)(B) includes information services.
\81\ We thus disagree with City Coalition's contention that
``[i]f . . . a cable operator agrees to undertake obligations
regarding information services though arms-length negotiation--be
they obligations regarding facilities that are not part of the cable
system or obligations regarding noncable services--then a LFA may
enforce those obligations.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
76. As discussed above, Congress in the 1984 Cable Act intended to
preserve the status quo with respect to federal, state, and local
jurisdiction over non-cable services, which lends further support to
our conclusion that LFAs may not use their cable franchising authority
to regulate information services provided over a cable system. Because
information services that are interstate historically have fallen
outside the lawful regulatory purview of state and local
authorities,\82\ including LFAs, construing section 624(b) to bring
those services within the scope of permissible LFA authority under
Title VI would be fundamentally at odds with Congressional intent. For
this reason, we reject City of Philadelphia et al.'s contention that
our application of the mixed-use rule is barred by the Act because
``[t]he `regulatory and jurisdictional status quo' in 1984 . . .
included [LFAs'] use of the franchise and franchise agreement to
regulate . . . cable systems that [Congress] recognized were carrying
both cable services and non-cable communications services.'' The
statutory design as reflected in other provisions of Title VI
reinforces our conclusion that LFAs are precluded under section
624(b)(1) from regulating non-cable services provided over the cable
systems of incumbent cable operators that are not common carriers.
LFAs, therefore, may not lawfully regulate the non-cable services of
such cable operators, including information services (such as broadband
internet access), private carrier services (such as certain types of
business data services), and interconnected VoIP service.\83\ For
example, this precludes LFAs from not only requiring such a cable
operator to pay fees or secure a franchise to provide broadband service
via its franchised cable system, but also requiring it to meet
prescribed service quality or performance standards for broadband
service carried over that cable system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ The Commission has determined that the term ``information
service'' has essentially the same meaning as the term ``enhanced
service'' for purposes of applying the Act. Moreover, even assuming
that LFAs at the time Congress passed the 1984 Cable Act used their
cable franchising authority to regulate non-cable services as City
of Philadelphia et al. asserts, the provisions of section 624
plainly evidence Congressional intent to treat pre- and post-Act
cable franchises differently.
\83\ Although interconnected VoIP service has not been
classified by the Commission, LFA regulation of this service is
prohibited under the mixed-use rule, as clarified in this Order,
regardless of whether it is deemed a telecommunications service or
an information service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
77. We find unconvincing arguments that the statute compels a
broader reading of LFAs' authority under Title VI to regulate cable
operators' non-cable services, facilities, and equipment. Anne Arundel
County et al. maintains, for example, that because section 624(a)
grants LFAs authority to regulate a ``cable operator,'' a term the Act
defines as ``[a] person . . . who provides cable service over a cable
system,'' LFAs generally are authorized to regulate any of the services
provided by a ``cable operator'' over a ``cable system,'' including
non-cable services.\84\ Anne Arundel County et al. contends further
that under section 624(b), LFAs ``to the extent related to the
establishment or operation of a cable system . . . may establish
requirements for facilities and equipment'' and argues that the Act
cannot be construed as limiting LFAs' jurisdiction to cable services
since it permits LFAs to require, for example, build out and
institutional networks. We disagree with these arguments. Although, as
Anne Arundel County et al. and others note, the Act in certain
circumstances permits LFAs to impose on cable operators certain
requirements that are not strictly related to the provision of cable
service, such circumstances constitute limited exceptions to the
general prohibition on LFA regulation of non-cable services contained
in section 624.\85\ They also do not override the specific prohibition
on regulation of information services set forth in section 624(b)(1).
This interpretation accords with one of the 1984 Cable Act's principal
purposes to ``continue[] reliance on the local franchising process as
the primary means of cable television regulation, while defining and
limiting the authority that a franchising authority may exercise
through the franchise process.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ Insofar as Anne Arundel County et al. is arguing that
``once a cable operator, always a cable operator,'' and ``once a
cable system, always a cable system,'' i.e., that when a cable
operator deploys facilities, those facilities remain part of a cable
system even when used to provide non-cable services, we disagree
with that assertion. Consistent with our interpretation of section
602(7)(C) above, we find that a more reasonable reading of the
statute is that the nature of facilities (i.e., ``cable system'' or
not) depends on how the facilities are used, not on whether the
provider offered cable service at the time the facilities were
deployed.
\85\ NATOA et al. agree that the grant to LFAs of authority to
require I-Nets is an exception from the general injunction in
section 621(b)(3)(D) against requiring cable operators to provide
telecommunications services or facilities. NATOA eta l. also appear
to concede that section 624(b) precludes LFAs from regulating under
Titled VI information services provided over cable systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
78. We also conclude, contrary to the assertions of some
commenters, that it would conflict with Congress's goals in the Act to
permit LFAs to treat incumbent cable operators that are not common
carriers differently from incumbent cable operators and new entrants
that are common carriers in their provision of information services,
including broadband internet access service. As we noted in the Second
FNPRM, incumbent and new entrant cable operators (whether or not they
are also common carriers) often compete in the same markets and offer
nearly identical services to consumers. Thus, to allow LFAs to regulate
the latter group of providers more strictly, such as by subjecting them
to franchise and fee requirements for the provision of non-cable
services, could place them at a
[[Page 44741]]
competitive disadvantage.\86\ A report submitted by NCTA asserts, for
example, that two fixed broadband providers may build out their
networks differently, with one utilizing wireless backhaul and the
other using landline backhaul, but ``if one has inputs subjected to
[fees] and the other does not, the differential . . . treatment can
distort competition between the two, even when the services provided .
. . are indistinguishable to the consumer.'' The distortion to
competition that stems from ``hampering a subset of competitors,'' in
turn, reduces the incentives of those competitors to invest in cable
system upgrades for the provision of both cable and non-cable services,
which could thwart the 1996 Act's goals to promote competition among
communications providers and secure lower prices and higher quality
services for consumers.\87\ Such regulations, moreover, impede the
Commission's development of a ``consistent regulatory framework across
all broadband platforms,'' which is ``[o]ne of the cornerstones of
[federal] broadband policy.'' \88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ As NCTA notes, under the First Report and Order, LFAs may
not lawfully require a telecommunications carrier with a preexisting
right to access public rights-of-way for the provision of
telecommunications services, to secure a Title VI franchise to
provide non-cable services over its network. We agree with NCTA that
a cable operator with a preexisting right to access public rights-
of-way for the provision of cable service likewise should not be
required to obtain a separate authorization to provide non-cable
services over its cable system, given that there is no incremental
burden on the rights-of-way.
\87\ We find no record basis for concluding that these concerns
are raised only with respect to incumbent cable operators, and not
new entrants.
\88\ The fact that section 602(7)(C) excludes from the term
``cable system'' a facility of a common carrier subject to Title II
of the Act does not persuade us that Congress intended to permit
LFAs to regulate incumbent cable operators that are not common
carriers differently from incumbent cable operators and new entrants
that are common carriers in their provision of non-cable services.
Rather, given Congress's desire in the Act to ensure ``competitively
neutral and nondiscriminatory'' regulation, we find that section
602(7)(C)'s carve out of Title II facilities from the definition of
``cable system'' merely evinces Congressional intent to preclude
franchising authorities from regulating any telecommunications
services carried over a cable system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
79. We also are not convinced by arguments that interpreting the
Act to bar LFAs from regulating non-cable facilities and equipment
placed in public rights-of-way would pose a safety risk to the public
because cable operators would have unfettered discretion to install
non-cable facilities without review or approval by local authorities.
Section 636(a) of the Act specifically provides that ``[n]othing in
[Title VI] shall be construed to affect any authority of any State,
political subdivision, or agency thereof, or franchising authority,
regarding matters of public health, safety, and welfare, to the extent
consistent with the express provisions of [Title VI].'' This provision,
which is an express exception to Title VI's general prohibition on
franchising authority regulation of non-cable facilities and equipment,
thus permits LFAs to impose requirements on non-cable facilities and
equipment designed to protect public safety, so long as such
requirements otherwise are consistent with the provisions of Title VI.
80. As noted above, Title VI does not permit franchising
authorities to extract fees or impose franchise or other requirements
on cable operators insofar as they are providing services other than
cable services. Ample record evidence shows, however, that some states
and localities are purporting to assert authority to do so outside the
limited scope of their authority under Title VI. These efforts appear
to have followed the decision by the Supreme Court of Oregon in City of
Eugene v. Comcast, which upheld a local government's imposition of an
additional seven percent ``telecommunications'' license fee on the
provision of broadband services over a franchised cable system with
mixed use facilities. To address this problem, we now expressly preempt
any state or local requirement, whether or not imposed by a franchising
authority, that would impose obligations on franchised cable operators
beyond what Title VI allows.\89\ Specifically, we preempt (1) any
imposition of fees on a franchised cable operator or any affiliate
using the same facilities franchised to the cable operator \90\ that
exceeds the formula set forth in section 622(b) of the Act and the
rulings we adopt in this document, whether styled as a ``franchise''
fee, ``right-of-access'' fee, or a fee on non-cable (e.g.,
telecommunications or broadband) services, and (2) any requirement that
a cable operator with a Title VI franchise secure an additional
franchise or other authorization to provide non-cable services via its
cable system.\91\ We base these conclusions on Congress's express
decision to preempt state and local laws that conflict with Title VI of
the Communications Act (section 636(c)), the text and structure of
Title VI and the Act as a whole, Congressional and Commission policies
(including the policy of nonregulation of information services), and
the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ Such preemption applies to the imposition of duplicative
taxes, fees, assessments, or other requirements on affiliates of the
cable operator that utilize the cable system to provide non-cable
services.
\90\ For example, a cable operator may provide voice or
broadband services through affiliates, and an LFA could not impose
duplicative fees on those affiliates.
\91\ We do not set forth an exhaustive list of state and local
laws and legal requirements that are deemed expressly preempted.
Rather, we simply clarify that state and local laws and other legal
requirements are preempted to the extent that they conflict with the
Act and the Commission's implementing rules and policies. As
discussed in paragraph below, such preempted requirements include
those expressly approved in Eugene.
\92\ Contrary to some assertions in the record, we find that the
Second FNPRM provided adequate notice to interested parties that the
Commission could exercise its preemption authority under section
636(c) to address local regulation of non-cable services outside
Title VI. In support of its tentative conclusion that ``[s]ection
624(b) of the Act prohibits LFAs from using their franchising
authority to regulate the provision of information services,
including broadband internet access service,'' the Second FNPRM
specifically cited section 636(c) and set forth the text of that
provision nearly verbatim. In addition, the Commission in the Second
FNPRM tentatively concluded that preempted ``entry and exit
restrictions'' include requirements that an incumbent cable operator
obtain a franchise to provide broadband internet access service and
that LFAs therefore are expressly preempted from imposing such
requirements. The Commission sought comment on that tentative
conclusion and 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.'' Such regulations include
duplicative fee and franchise requirements imposed by franchising
authorities such as the City of Eugene, which is a ``governmental
entity empowered by . . . [s]tate [] or local law to grant a [cable
franchise].'' Indeed, the fact that multiple LFA advocates
recognized that the Second FNPRM could be read to seek comment on
the Commission's authority to preempt requirements imposed outside
Title VI contradicts claims that the Second FNPRM did not adequately
apprise parties of the possible scope of the Commission's preemption
ruling. Moreover, the fact that cable commenters in this proceeding
referenced section 636(c) as a potential basis for our preemption
ruling demonstrates that such ruling is a ``logical outgrowth'' of
the Second FNPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
81. Authority to Preempt. Congress has the authority to preempt
state law under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. While Congress's
intent to preempt sometimes needs to be discerned or implied from a
purported conflict between federal and state law, here Congress spoke
directly to its intent to preempt state and local requirements that are
inconsistent with Title VI. This express preemption extends beyond the
actions of any state or local franchising authority. Section 636(c) of
the Act provides that ``any provision of law of any State, political
subdivision, or agency thereof, or franchising authority, or any
provision of any franchise granted by such authority, which is
inconsistent with this chapter shall be deemed to be
[[Page 44742]]
preempted and superseded.'' \93\ The reference in section 636(c) to
``this chapter'' means that Congress intended to preempt any state or
local law (or any franchise provision) that is inconsistent with any
provision of the Communications Act, whether or not codified in Title
VI.\94\ Moreover, section 636(c) applies broadly to ``any
[inconsistent] provision of law'' of ``any State, political
subdivision, or agency thereof.'' \95\ That means that Congress
intended that states and localities could not ``end-run'' the Act's
limitations by using other governmental entities or other sources of
authority to accomplish indirectly what franchising authorities are
prohibited from doing directly.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ For purposes of this provision, the term ``State'' has the
meaning given such term in section 3 of the Act. Section 3, in turn,
provides that ``the term `State' includes the District of Columbia
and the Territories and possessions.''
\94\ Section 636(c)'s reference to ``this chapter'' is to the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which is codified in Chapter
5 of Title 47 of the United States Code. Section 636(c)'s reference
to ``this chapter'' stands in contrast to other provisions in
section 636, which reference ``this subchapter,'' or Title VI of the
Act.
\95\ Contrary to some LFAs' assertion, given that Congress in
section 636(c) expressly preempted certain state and local laws, we
need not find that federal preemption of laws governing intrastate
telecommunications services is permissible under the ``impossibility
exception.'' Nevertheless, we find that the impossibility doctrine
further supports our decision herein.
\96\ Contrary to the suggestion of the City of Eugene, our
preemption authority does not depend on section 706 of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
82. Where Congress provides an express preemption provision such as
section 636(c), the Commission has delegated authority to identify the
scope of the subject matter expressly preempted and assess whether a
state's law falls within that scope. The Commission may, therefore,
expressly bar states and localities from acting in a manner that is
inconsistent with both the Act and the Commission's interpretations of
the Act, so long as those interpretations are valid. We therefore
disagree with assertions that the Commission lacks authority to preempt
non-cable regulations imposed by states and localities pursuant to non-
Title VI sources of legal authority.
83. Scope of Preemption. The Commission's task, then, in
interpreting the scope of preemption under section 636(c) is to
determine whether specific state or local requirements are inconsistent
with Title VI or other provisions in the Communications Act. Looking at
the provisions of Title VI and the Act as a whole, we have little
trouble concluding that Congress did not intend to permit states,
municipalities, or franchising authorities to impose fees or other
requirements on cable operators beyond those specified under Title VI,
under the guise of regulating ``non-cable services'' or otherwise
restricting a cable operator's construction, operation, or management
of facilities in the rights-of-way.
84. As an initial matter, we note that Title VI establishes a
framework that reflects the basic terms of a bargain--a cable operator
may apply for and obtain a franchise to access and operate facilities
in the local rights-of-way, and in exchange, a franchising authority
may impose fees and other requirements as set forth and circumscribed
in the Act. So long as the cable operator pays its fees and complies
with the other terms of its franchise, it has a license to operate and
manage its cable system free from the specter of compliance with any
new, additional, or unspecified conditions (by franchise or otherwise)
for its use of the same rights-of-way.
85. The substantive provisions of Title VI make the terms of this
bargain clear. For starters, section 621(a)(1) provides franchising
authorities with the right to grant franchises, and section 621(a)(2)
explains that such franchises ``shall be construed to authorize the
construction of a cable system over public rights-of-way . . .'' A
``cable operator,'' in turn, may not provide ``cable service'' unless
the cable operator has obtained such a franchise. Other provisions make
clear that a franchise does not merely authorize the construction of a
cable system, but also the ``management and operation of such a cable
system,\97\ including the installation of Wi-Fi and small cell antennas
attached to the cable system.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ We therefore reject LFA assertions that the absence in
section 621(a)(2) of an express grant of authority to ``operate'' a
cable system evinces Congress's intent that a Title VI franchise
bestow only the right to construct, but not to operate, a cable
system over public rights-of-way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
86. The right to construct, manage, and operate a ``cable system''
does not mean merely the right to provide cable service.\98\ Numerous
provisions in Title VI evidence Congress's knowledge and understanding
that cable systems would carry non-cable services--including
telecommunications and information services. The definition of ``cable
system,'' for example, anticipates that some facilities may carry both
telecommunications and cable services. With respect to information
services, section 601 of the Act provides that one of Title VI's
purposes is to ``assure that cable communications provide and are
encouraged to provide the widest possible diversity of information
sources and services to the public.'' And, as we have already seen,
Congress expressly provided in section 624(b) for ``mixed-use''
facilities that carry both cable services and ``video programming or
other information services.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ As noted, under section 621(a)(2), ``[a]ny franchise shall
be construed to authorize the construction of a cable system over
public rights-of-way.'' Because the ``construction of a cable
system'' includes the installation of facilities and equipment
needed to provide both cable and non-cable services, such as
wireless broadband and Wi-Fi services, the grant of a Title VI
franchise bestows the right to place facilities and equipment in
rights-of-way to provide such services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
87. The legislative history reinforces the conclusion that Congress
understood that a franchised ``cable system'' would carry both cable
and non-cable services. The House Report, for example, explains that
``[t]he term `cable system' is not limited to a facility that provides
only cable service which includes video programming. Quite the
contrary, many cable systems provide a wide variety of cable services
and other communications services as well. A facility would be a cable
system if it were designed to include the provision of cable services
(including video programming) along with communications services other
than cable service.''
88. The point is that Congress was well aware that ``cable
systems'' would be used to carry a variety of cable and non-cable
services. It follows that Congress could have, if it wanted, provided
significant leeway for states, localities, and franchising authorities
to tax or provide other regulatory restrictions on a cable system's
provision of non-cable services in exchange for the cable operator
receiving access to the rights-of-way. But as it turns out, the balance
of Title VI makes clear that Congress sharply circumscribed the
authority of state or local governments to regulate the terms of this
exchange. In this document, we make clear that, under section 636(c),
states, localities, and franchising authorities may not impose fees or
restrictions on cable operators for the provision of non-cable services
in connection with access to such rights-of-way, except as expressly
authorized in the Act. We provide further explanation in two critical
areas to clarify that these categories of state and local restrictions
are preempted: (a) Additional franchise fees beyond those authorized in
section 622 and (b) additional franchises or regulatory restrictions on
a cable operator's construction, management, or operation of a cable
system in the rights-of-way.
89. Additional fees. Both Congress and the Commission have
recognized that the franchise fee is the core consideration that
franchising authorities receive in exchange for the
[[Page 44743]]
cable operator's right to access and use the rights-of-way. As
explained in detail above, Congress carefully circumscribed how this
fee should be calculated: It provided 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''. We
must assume that Congress's careful choice of words was intentional.
While the fee would apply to the ``cable operator'' with respect to any
``cable system,'' it would only apply to revenue obtained from ``cable
services,'' not non-cable services that Congress understood could
provide additional sources of revenue.
90. We find additional support for this conclusion in Congress's
broad definition of the term ``franchise fee,'' which covers ``any tax,
fee, or assessment of any kind imposed by a franchising authority or
other governmental entity on a cable operator or cable subscriber or
both, solely because of their status as such.'' This broad definition
was intended to limit the imposition of any tax, fee, or assessment of
any kind--including fees purportedly for provision of non-cable
services or for, access to, use of, or the value of the rights of way--
to five percent of the cable operator's revenue from cable
services.\99\ And its language reinforces the text of section 636(c) by
making clear that a different state or local ``governmental entity''
cannot end-run the cap by imposing fees for access to any public right
of way within the franchise area or in instances of overlapping
jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ State and local advocates do not appear to dispute that
section 622(b) limits franchise fees to five percent of a cable
operator's gross revenues derived from the provision of cable
service only. Rather, their claims, as discussed herein, are that
fees on broadband and telecommunications services are not
``franchise fees'' at all--claims that we show are belied by the
text, structure, and purposes of Title VI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
91. In reaching this conclusion, we read the phrase ``solely
because of their status as such'' as protective language intended to
place a ceiling on any sort of fee that a franchising authority might
impose on a cable operator qua cable operator or qua franchisee--that
is, any fee assessed in exchange for the right to construct, manage, or
operate a cable system in the rights-of-way. We therefore reject the
claim of some commenters that this language permits localities to
charge additional fees so long as the cable operator also acts as a
telecommunications provider or internet service provider, or so long as
the state or locality can articulate some non-cable related rationale
for its actions. This alternate rationale flies in the face of
statutory text. As noted above, a ``cable operator'' is defined not
only as a person or entity that provides cable service, but also one
that ``controls or is responsible for, through any arrangement, the
management and operation of such a cable system.'' The management or
operation of a cable system includes the maintenance of the system to
provide non-cable services--which Congress understood would be supplied
over the same cable facilities.\100\ Because a fee that a state or
locality imposes on a cable operator's provision of non-cable services
relates to the ``manage[ment] and operat[ion]'' of its cable system,
such fee is imposed on the cable operator ``solely because of [its]
status'' as a cable operator and is capped by section 622.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ As NCTA notes, a service provider may have status as a
cable operator either because of its provision of cable service or
because of its operation of a cable system. A service provider that
is operating a cable system to provide broadband internet access
service thus is providing such service ``solely because of'' its
status as a cable operator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
92. The structure of section 622 as a whole provides further
support for our reading. The language ``solely because of their status
as such'' operates to distinguish fees imposed on cable operators for
access to the rights-of-way (``franchise fees''), which are capped,
from ``any tax, fee, or assessment of general applicability,'' which
are not. Section 622 thus envisions two mutually exclusive categories
of assessments--(1) fees imposed on cable operators for access to the
rights-of-way in their capacity as franchisees (that is, ``solely
because of their status as such'') and (2) broad-based taxes.
Understood in this manner, any assessment on a cable operator for
constructing, managing, or operating its cable system in the rights-of-
way is subject to the five-percent cap--even if other non-cable service
providers (e.g., telecommunications or broadband providers) are subject
to the same or similar access fees.\101\ This is because the definition
of ``franchise fee'' in section 622(g)(1) centers on why the fee is
imposed on a cable operator, i.e., ``solely because of [its] status''
as a franchisee, and not to whom the fee is imposed, i.e., ``solely
applicable'' to a cable operator. The entire category of ``franchise
fees'' is subject to the five-percent cap, in distinction to generally-
applicable taxes whose validity must be shown, at least in part, by
their application to broader classes of entities or citizens beyond
providers of cable and non-cable communications services.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ Although a ``franchise fee'' does not include ``any tax,
fee, or assessment of general applicability,'' we note that this
exception excludes a tax, fee, or assessment ``which is unduly
discriminatory against cable operators or cable subscribers.'' Even
if ``telecommunications'' fees such as those at issue in Eugene
could reasonably be characterized as fees of general applicability
by virtue of their application to providers other than cable
operators, we find that such fees would be ``unduly
discriminatory''--and thus constitute ``franchise fees''--as applied
to franchised cable operators. This is because such fees are
assessed on cable operators in addition to the five percent
franchise fees such operators must pay for use of public rights-of-
way. That is, cable operators must pay twice for access to rights-
of-way (i.e., one fee for cable service and a second fee for non-
cable service), whereas non-cable providers must pay only once for
such access (i.e., for non-cable service). We, therefore, conclude
that interpreting the Act to preclude localities from assessing fees
on cable operators' use of rights-of-way to provide non-cable
services would be ``competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory,''
contrary to the suggestion of some commenters.
\102\ We thus disagree with assertions that Congress did not
intend for franchise fees to cover cable operators' use of public
property for the provision of services other than cable services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
93. The legislative history and purposes of the 1984 Cable Act
support this broad and exclusive interpretation of the term ``franchise
fees.'' It reveals, for example, that Congress initially established
the section 622(b) cap on franchise fees out of concern that local
authorities could use such fees as a revenue-raising mechanism. A
reading of section 622 that would permit states and localities to
circumvent the five percent cap by imposing unbounded fees on ``non-
cable services'' would frustrate the Congressional purpose behind the
cap and effectively render it meaningless. The legislative history
behind the 1996 amendments to section 622(b) make this intent explicit.
Prior to 1996, section 622 provided, in relevant part, that ``the
franchise fees paid by a cable operator with respect to any cable
system shall not exceed [five percent] of such cable operator's gross
revenues derived . . . from the operation of the cable system.'' The
House Report accompanying the 1996 amendment,\103\ which explained the
addition of the key limitation ``for the provision of cable services''
in section 622(b), provides that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ The conference agreement adopted the House version of this
provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Franchising authorities may collect franchise fees under
[section 622 of the Act] solely on the basis of the revenues derived
by an operator from the provision of cable service. . . . This
section does not restrict the right of franchising authorities to
collect franchise fees on revenues from cable services and cable-
related services, such as, but not limited to, revenue from the
installation of cable service, equipment used to receive cable
service, advertising over
[[Page 44744]]
video channels, compensation received from video programmers, and
other sources related to the provision of cable service over the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
cable system.
94. If, as CAPA asserts, Congress had intended the term ``cable
operator'' as used in section 622(b) to refer to an entity only to the
extent such entity provides cable service, there would have been no
need for Congress to amend section 622(b) in this manner.
95. Although, as LFA advocates note, section 621(d)(2) of the Act
provides that ``[n]othing in [Title VI] shall be construed to affect
the authority of any State to regulate any cable operator to the extent
that such operator provides any communication service other than cable
service, whether offered on a common carrier or private contract
basis,'' this provision is not an affirmative grant to states of
authority to regulate non-cable services that they historically have
not been empowered to regulate. First, the term ``State'' in section
621(d) does not extend to LFAs; it is defined by reference to section 3
of the Communications Act. The legislative history makes clear that
this was a reference to the division of regulatory authority between
the ``state public utility commission and . . . the FCC.'' Second, this
provision merely reflects Congress's intent in the 1984 Cable Act to
preserve the status quo with respect to federal and state jurisdiction
over non-cable services. As noted, under the then-existing status quo,
the Commission had jurisdiction to regulate interstate services; states
had jurisdiction to regulate intrastate services. Because the
Commission historically has concluded that information service is
jurisdictionally interstate, it traditionally has fallen outside the
proper regulatory sphere of state and local authorities.\104\ Moreover,
the Commission has long recognized the impossibility of separately
regulating interstate and intrastate information services. Thus,
neither a state nor its political subdivisions may lawfully regulate
such service under section 621(d)(2) by requiring a cable operator with
a Title VI franchise to pay a fee or secure a franchise or other
authorization to provide broadband internet access service over its
cable system. To conclude otherwise would contravene Congress's intent
in Title VI to maintain the jurisdictional status quo with respect to
federal, state, and local regulation of non-cable services.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ For example, the Commission previously has stated that it
has independent authority to displace state and local regulations in
accordance with the longstanding federal policy of nonregulation for
information services. For more than a decade prior to the 1996 Act,
the Commission consistently preempted state regulation of
information services (which were then known as ``enhanced
services''). When Congress adopted the Commission's regulatory
framework and its deregulatory approach to information services in
the 1996 Act, it thus embraced its longstanding policy of preempting
state laws that interfere with our federal policy of nonregulation.
Because broadband internet access service is jurisdictionally
interstate whether classified as a telecommunications or an
information service, regulatory authority over such service resides
exclusively with the Commission.
\105\ We also reject claims that section 621(d)(1)'s grant to
states of authority to require the filing of tariffs by cable
operators for the provision of certain non-cable services reflects
Congress's intent to permit state regulation of those services. As
explained above, that provision was intended only to permit states
to require tariffs for services that they otherwise were authorized
to regulate, such as telecommunications services that are purely
intrastate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
96. We find unpersuasive NATOA et al.'s selective reading of the
legislative history to conclude that Congress intended to permit states
and localities to require franchised cable operators to pay additional
rights-of-way fees for the provision of non-cable services. NATOA et
al. note that the House Conference Report accompanying the 1996
amendment stated that ``to the extent permissible under state and local
law, communications services, including those provided by a cable
company, shall be subject to the authority of a local government to, in
a nondiscriminatory and competitively neutral way, manage its public
rights-of-way and charge fair and reasonable fees.'' Although the cited
legislative history is relevant to our interpretation of the
statute,\106\ we do not read this language so broadly as permitting
states and localities to charge redundant or duplicative fees on cable
franchisees that are subject to the five-percent cap--a reading that
would, as we have explained, eviscerate the cap entirely. Rather, we
conclude that, under section 636(c), and taking into account the
provisions of Title VI as a whole, any fees that exceed the five-
percent cap, as formulated in section 622, are not ``fair and
reasonable.'' \107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ As some LFA advocates note, the Commission previously
noted in passing that, while a cable operator is not required to pay
cable franchise fees on revenues from non-cable services, this rule
``does not apply to non-cable franchise fee requirements, such as
any lawful fees related to the provision of telecommunications
service.'' For the reasons explained below, we would deem an LFA's
assessment of a cable operator twice for accessing public rights-of-
way (once as a cable operator and again as a telecommunications
provider) to be unlawful as not ``fair and reasonable'' nor
``competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory.'' To the extent our
earlier statement may suggest any broader application, we disavow it
based on the record before us and the arguments made throughout this
item.
\107\ We disagree with LFA assertions that this interpretation
is inconsistent with section 253 of the Act and the Commission's
2018 Wireless Infrastructure Order. Although section 253 permits
states and localities to require ``fair and reasonable''
compensation from telecommunications providers on a ``competitively
neutral and nondiscriminatory basis'' for use of public rights-of-
way, as explained above, we find that imposing fees on cable
operators beyond what Title VI allows is neither ``fair and
reasonable'' nor ``competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory.''
Moreover, although the Commission in the Wireless Infrastructure
Order concluded, among other things, that fees to use the rights-of-
way to deploy small cells for the provision of telecommunications
must be cost-based and no greater than those charged to ``similarly
situated'' entities for comparable uses of the rights-of-way, we do
not believe that our approach in this document introduces any
inconsistency. Rather, as NCTA notes, we merely recognize that under
the Act, cable operators must compensate local governments for
accessing public rights-of-way under a statutory framework different
from that applicable to telecommunications providers, and that
Congress did not intend for them to be assessed twice for the
provision of cable service or the facilities used in the provision
of such service. Any difference in approach, therefore, follows from
different standards established by Congress in sections II and VI of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
97. Consistent with Congress's intent, as early as 2002, the
Commission has construed section 622(b) to permit franchising
authorities to include in the revenue base for franchise fee
calculations only those revenues derived from the provision of cable
service.\108\ Thus, if a cable operator generates additional revenue by
providing non-cable services over its cable system, such additional
revenue may not be included in the gross revenues for purposes of
calculating the cable franchise fee.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ In the Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling, for example, the
Commission stated that under section 622(b) the franchise fees paid
by a cable operator with respect to any cable system may not exceed
five percent of the cable operator's gross revenues derived from the
operation of the cable system to provide cable services. Because
cable modem service was then deemed to be an information service,
the Commission concluded that revenue from cable modem service would
not be included in the calculation of gross revenues from which the
franchise fee ceiling is determined.
\109\ In the First Report and Order, the Commission affirmed its
prior interpretation of section 622(b) by clarifying that a cable
operator is not required to pay franchise fees on revenues from non-
cable services. Thus, internet access services, including broadband
data services, and any other non-cable services are not subject to
`cable services' fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
98. As courts have recognized, the Commission is charged with ``the
ultimate responsibility for ensuring a `national policy' with respect
to franchise fees.'' We exercise that authority in this document by
making clear that states, localities, and cable franchising authorities
are preempted from charging franchised cable operators more than five
percent of their gross revenue from cable services. This cap applies to
any attempt to impose a ``tax, fee, or assessment of any kind'' that is
not subject to one of the enumerated exemptions in section 622(g)(2) on
a cable operator's non-cable
[[Page 44745]]
services or its ability to construct, manage, or operate its cable
system in the rights-of-way.
99. Additional Franchises or Other Requirements. Congress also made
clear that states, localities, and franchising authorities lack
authority to require additional franchises or place additional
nonmonetary conditions on a cable operator's provision of non-cable
services that are not expressly authorized in the Act. Several
provisions state explicitly that franchising authorities may not
regulate franchised ``cable systems'' to the extent that they provide
telecommunications services. In addition, as we noted above, section
624(b)(1) precludes franchising authorities from ``establish[ing]
requirements for video programming or other information services.'' In
the mixed-use rule we adopt in this document, we reasonably construed
this provision to prohibit LFAs from regulating information services
provided over cable systems.
100. As noted above, section 636(c) operates to preempt state and
local requirements that would use non-Title VI authority to accomplish
indirectly what franchising authorities are prohibited from doing
directly. Consistent with this reasoning, we conclude that any state or
local law or legal requirement that obligates a cable operator
franchised under Title VI to obtain a separate, additional franchise
(or other authorization) or imposes requirements beyond those permitted
by Title VI to provide cable or non-cable services, including
telecommunications and information services, over its cable system
conflicts with the Act and thus also is expressly preempted by section
636(c). The mixed-use rule we adopt in this document represents a
reasonable interpretation of the relevant provisions of Title VI as
well as a balanced accommodation of the various policy interests that
Congress entrusted to the Commission; therefore, it too has preemptive
effect under section 636(c).\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ We reject arguments that the Commission lacks authority to
preempt state and local regulation of information services without
asserting ancillary jurisdiction over information services. Because
we are relying on express preemption authority under section 636(c),
there is no reason for us to rely upon ancillary authority in this
proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
101. Public Policy. Apart from our analysis of the text and
structure of the Act and our longstanding delegated authority to
preempt state regulations that are inconsistent with the Act, our
preemption decisions in this document are also consistent with
Congress's and the Commission's public policy goals and an appropriate
response to problems that are apparent in the record.
102. Recognizing that excessive regulation at the local level could
limit the potential of cable systems to deliver a broad array of
services, Congress expressed its intent to ``minimize unnecessary
regulation that would impose an undue economic burden on cable
systems'' and ``assure that cable communications provide and are
encouraged to provide the widest possible diversity of information
sources and services to the public.'' More generally, section 230(b) of
the Act expresses Congress's intent ``to preserve the vibrant and
competitive free market that presently exists for the internet and
other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State
regulation.'' \111\ Accordingly, the Commission has previously
preempted state and local regulations that would conflict with this
federal policy of nonregulation of information services. These
longstanding federal policies provide further support for our decision
in this document to read Title VI as prohibiting states, localities,
and franchising authorities from imposing fees and obligations on cable
operators beyond those expressly set forth in that Title.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ ``Interactive computer services'' are defined, in relevant
part, as ``any information service, system, or access software
provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users
to a computer service, including specifically a service or system
that provides access to the Internet. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
103. Our preemption decision in this document will advance these
federal policies by preventing further abuses of state and local
authorities of the kind manifested in the record in this proceeding. In
recent years, governmental entities at the local level increasingly
have sought to regulate non-cable services provided over mixed-use
cable systems franchised under Title VI, particularly broadband
internet access service. Such governmental entities have included not
only state and local franchising authorities acting pursuant to the
cable franchising provisions of Title VI, but also state and local
entities purportedly acting pursuant to their police powers to regulate
public rights-of-way or other powers derived from sources outside Title
VI. Although the record reveals that such regulation takes many
different forms, NCTA and other industry advocates have expressed acute
concerns about two particular kinds of state and local regulation: (1)
Requirements obligating cable operators with a Title VI franchise that
are subject to the franchise fee requirement in section 622(b) of the
Act to pay additional fees for the provision of non-cable services
(such as broadband internet access) via their cable systems; and (2)
requirements obligating cable operators with a Title VI franchise to
secure an additional franchise (or other authorization) to provide non-
cable services over their cable systems. Our preemption decisions in
this document are carefully tailored to address these problems and
prevent states and localities from continuing to circumvent the
carefully calibrated terms of Title VI through these and similar kinds
of regulations.
104. We disagree with those commenters who attempt to minimize the
harm posed by the state and local requirements that we preempt in this
document. We disagree, for example, that cable industry claims
regarding the impact of duplicative fee and franchise requirements on
broadband deployment are belied by the industry's substantial
investments to date in broadband infrastructure, and that such
requirements thus will not adversely affect broadband investment going
forward. As the record reflects, even if cable operators were to
continue to invest, such investments likely would be higher absent such
requirements, and even small decreases in investment can have a
substantial adverse impact on consumer welfare. We also are persuaded
that the imposition of duplicative requirements may deter investment in
new infrastructure and services irrespective of whether or to what
extent a cable operator passes on those costs to consumers. Contrary to
the assertions of some commenters, we also believe that such
requirements impede Congress's goal to accelerate deployment of
``advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans.''
[[Page 44746]]
105. Other Legal Considerations. In reaching our decision in this
document, we agree with the majority of courts that have found that a
Title VI franchise authorizes a cable operator to provide non-cable
services without additional franchises or fee payments to state or
local authorities. In so doing, we repudiate the reasoning in a 2016
decision by the Supreme Court of Oregon in City of Eugene v.
Comcast,\112\which appears to have prompted an increasing number of
states and municipalities to impose fees on franchised cable operators'
provision of non-cable services.\113\ In Eugene, the court upheld the
city's imposition of a separate, additional ``telecommunications''
license fee on the provision of broadband services over a franchised
cable system, reasoning that the fee was not imposed pursuant to the
city's Title VI cable franchising authority, but rather, under the
city's authority as a local government to impose fees for access to
rights-of-way for the provision of telecommunications services. For the
reasons stated above, we conclude that Eugene fundamentally misreads
the text, structure, and legislative history of the Act, and clarify
that any state or local regulation that imposes on a cable operator
fees for the provision of non-cable services over a cable system
franchised under Title VI conflicts with section 622(b) of the Act and
is preempted under section 636(c).\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ The regulations at issue in Eugene included that: (i)
Comcast's franchise agreement for the provision of cable services
over the city's public rights-of-way did not give it the right to
provide cable modem service over those rights-of-way; (ii) the
Communications Act did not give Comcast an independent right to
provide cable modem service over the city's public rights-of-way;
(iii) the Act did not preclude the city from assessing fees on
revenues derived from Comcast's provision of cable modem service
over public rights-of-way; and (iv) such fees did not constitute
franchise fees under section 622(b) of the Act.
\113\ NCTA asserts that in the wake of Eugene, a multitude of
cities in Oregon have adopted or reinterpreted ordinances to impose
fees on gross revenues derived from the provision of broadband
services, in addition to those already imposed under cable
franchises. NCTA notes that multiple communities in Ohio also have
passed ordinances requiring that cable operators secure a
``Certificate of Registration'' in addition to a state-issued cable
franchise before offering non-cable services, and that such
certificates require payment of additional fees as a condition of
occupying rights-of-way. NCTA asserts further that such duplicative
fees are imposed not only at the local level, but also at the state
level.
\114\ Such regulation includes not only requirements imposed by
a state or locality acting pursuant to the cable franchising
provisions of Title VI, but also requirements imposed by a state or
locality purportedly acting pursuant to any powers granted outside
Title VI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
106. As noted above, although sections 602(7)(C) and 624(b)(1) by
their terms circumscribe franchising authority regulation of non-cable
services pursuant to Title VI, section 636(c) makes clear that state
and local authorities may not end-run the provisions of Title VI simply
by asserting some other source of authority--such as their police
powers to regulate access to public rights-of-way--to accomplish what
Title VI prohibits. To be sure, section 636(a) provides that
``[n]othing in [Title VI] shall be construed to affect any authority of
any State, political subdivision, or agency thereof, or franchising
authority, regarding matters of public health, safety, and welfare, to
the extent consistent with the express provisions of [Title VI].''
While we recognize that states and municipalities possess authority to
manage rights-of-way that is distinct from their cable franchising
authority under Title VI, states and localities may not exercise that
authority in a manner that conflicts with federal law. As the U.S.
Supreme Court has found, ``[w]hen federal officials determine, as the
FCC has here, that restrictive regulation of a particular area is not
in the public interest, [s]tates are not permitted to use their police
power to enact such . . . regulation.''
107. Our decision in this document still leaves meaningful room for
states to exercise their traditional police powers under section
636(a).\115\ While we do not have occasion in this document to
delineate all the categories of state and local rules saved by that
provision, we note that states and localities under section 636(a) may
lawfully engage in rights-of-way management (e.g., road closures
necessitated by cable plant installation, enforcement of building and
electrical codes) so long as such regulation otherwise is consistent
with Title VI. Similarly, we do not preempt state regulation of
telecommunications services that are purely intrastate, such as
requirements that a cable operator obtain a certificate of public
convenience and necessity to provide such services. State regulation of
intrastate telecommunications services is permissible so long as it is
consistent with the Act and the Commission's implementing rules and
policies.\116\ We also do not disturb or displace the traditional role
of states in generally policing such matters as fraud, taxation, and
general commercial dealings, so long as the administration of such laws
does not interfere with federal regulatory objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ Given the robust scope that we retain in this Order for
the operation of section 636(a), we reject the City of Eugene's
assertion that we have not engaged in ``meaningful discussion'' of
this provision.
\116\ We note, for example, that section 253(a) of the Act
prohibits state or local statutes, regulations, or other legal
requirements that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the
ability of any entity to provide ``any interstate or intrastate
telecommunications service.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
108. We also find unconvincing Anne Arundel County et al.'s
argument that the Commission's preemption of state and local management
of public rights-of-way violates the Tenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution by ``direct[ing] local governments to surrender their
property and management rights to generate additional funds for use in
the expanded deployment of broadband.'' In particular, Anne Arundel
County et al. contends that by preventing states and localities from
overseeing use of their rights-of-way, the Commission effectively is
commanding them to grant rights-of-way access on terms established by
the Commission, rather than state or local governments. That argument
fails for multiple reasons.
109. The Tenth Amendment provides that ``[t]he powers not delegated
to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' We
find that Anne Arundel County et al. has failed to demonstrate any
violation of the Tenth Amendment. As the Supreme Court has stated,
``[i]f a power is delegated to Congress in the Constitution, the Tenth
Amendment expressly disclaims any reservation of that power to the
States.'' Therefore, when Congress acts within the scope of its
authority under the Commerce Clause, no Tenth Amendment issue arises.
Regulation of interstate telecommunications and information services,
and cable services, is within Congress' authority under the Commerce
Clause. Thus, because our authority derives from a proper exercise of
Congressional power, the Tenth Amendment poses no obstacle to our
preemption of state and local laws and other legal requirements.
110. We also find no merit to arguments that the Commission's
preemption of certain state and local requirements constitutes an
improper ``commandeering'' of state governmental power. The Supreme
Court has recognized that ``where Congress has the authority to
regulate private activity under the Commerce Clause,'' Congress has the
``power to offer States the choice of regulating that activity
according to federal standards or having state law preempted by federal
regulation.'' Title VI provides that a franchising authority ``may
award'' franchises ``in accordance with this title.'' It thus simply
establishes limitations on the scope of that authority when and if
exercised. Here, we are simply requiring that,
[[Page 44747]]
should state and local governments decide to open their rights-of-way
to providers of interstate communication services within the
Commission's jurisdiction, they do so in accordance with federal
standards. As noted, Congress in section 636(c) expressly authorized
Commission preemption of state and local laws and other legal
requirements that conflict with federal standards. Because the
Commission has the constitutional authority to adopt such standards,
and because those standards do not require that state or local
governments take or decline to take any particular action, we conclude
that our preemption decisions in this Order do not violate the Tenth
Amendment.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ We also conclude that our actions do not violate the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The ``takings'' clause of the
Fifth Amendment provides: ``[N]or shall private property be taken
for public use, without just compensation.'' First, our actions
herein do not result in a Fifth Amendment taking. Courts have held
that municipalities generally do not have a compensable
``ownership'' interest in public rights-of-way, but rather hold the
public streets and sidewalks in trust for the public. Moreover, even
if there was a taking, Congress provided for ``just compensation''
through cable franchise fees. Section 622(h)(2) of the Act provides
that a franchising authority may recover a franchise fee of up to
five percent of a cable operator's annual gross revenues derived
from the provision of cable service. Congress intended that the
cable franchise fee serve as the consideration given in exchange for
a cable operator's right to use public rights-of-way. Our actions
herein do not eviscerate the ability of local authorities to impose
such franchise fees. Rather, our actions simply ensure that local
authorities do not impose duplicative fees for the same use of
rights-of-way by mixed use facilities of cable operators, contrary
to express statutory provisions and policy goals set forth in the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
111. As proposed in the Second FNPRM, we find that the conclusions
set forth in this Order, as well as the Commission's decisions in the
First Report and Order \118\ and Second Report and Order,\119\ as
clarified in the Order on Reconsideration, apply 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
declined to ``address the reasonableness of demands made by state level
franchising authorities'' or to extend the ``findings and regulations''
adopted in its section 621 orders to actions taken at the state level.
It noted that many state franchising laws had only been in effect for a
short time and that the Commission lacked a sufficient record regarding
their effect. In the Order on Reconsideration, the Commission indicated
that if any interested parties believed the Commission should revisit
the issue in the future, they could present the Commission with
evidence that the findings in the First Report and Order and Second
Report and Order ``are of practical relevance to the franchising
process at the state-level and therefore should be applied or extended
accordingly.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ 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.
\119\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
112. In the Second FNPRM, we again asked whether the Commission
should apply the decisions in this proceeding to franchising actions
and regulations taken at the state level. As we noted, more than ten
years have passed since the Commission first considered whether to
apply its decisions interpreting section 621 to state-level franchising
actions and state regulations. The decade of experience with the state-
franchising process, along with comments responding to the questions
related to this issue raised in the Second FNPRM, provide us with an
adequate record regarding the effect of state involvement in the
franchising process.
113. We now find that the better reading of the Cable Act's text
and purpose is that that the rules and decisions adopted in this Order,
as well as those adopted in the First Report and Order and Second
Report and Order, should fully apply to state-level franchising actions
and regulations. First, we see no statutory basis for distinguishing
between state- and local-level franchising actions. Nor do we think
such a distinction would further Congress's goals: Unreasonable demands
by state-level franchising authorities can impede competition and
investment just as unreasonable demands by local authorities can. While
we need not opine on the reasonableness of specific state actions
raised by commenters, we find that there is evidence in the record that
state franchising actions--alone or cumulatively with local franchising
actions--in some cases impose burdens beyond what the Cable Act allows.
We see no reason--statutory or otherwise--why the Cable Act would
prohibit these actions at the local level but permit them at the state
level.
114. The Cable Act does not distinguish between state and local
franchising authorities. Section 621(a) and the other cable franchising
provisions of Title VI circumscribe the power of ``franchising
authorities'' to regulate services provided over cable systems. The
Cable Act defines ``franchising authority'' as ``any governmental
entity empowered by Federal, State or local law to grant a franchise.''
In other words, the provisions of Title VI that apply to ``franchising
authorities'' apply equally to any entity ``empowered by . . . law''--
including state law--``to grant a franchise.'' Many states have left
franchising to local authorities, making those authorities subject to
the limits imposed under Title VI. Twenty-three states, however, have
empowered a state-level entity, such as a state public utility
commission, to grant cable franchise authorizations, rendering them
``franchising authorities'' under Title VI. Bolstering the conclusion
that Congress intended the Cable Act to govern state-level action is
section 636 of the Cable Act, which expressly preempts ``any provision
of law of any State, political subdivision, or agency thereof, or
franchising authority, or any provision of any franchise granted by
such authority'' that conflicts with the Cable Act.\120\ Limiting the
Commission's rulings to local-level action would call for some
plausible interpretation of these provisions; those opposing the
extension of the Commission's rulings to state franchising authorities
offer none. Accordingly, we find that the Cable Act does not
distinguish between state- and local-level franchising actions, and
that the Commission's rulings should therefore apply equally to both.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ As we explain above, this preemption does not extend to
state regulation of intrastate telecommunications services or
regulation related to matters of public health, safety, and welfare
that otherwise is consistent with the Act, and nothing in this Order
is intended to disturb the traditional role that states have played
in these regards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
115. In addition, we find unavailing claims in the record that the
Commission should limit its decisions to local authorities for policy
reasons. To the contrary, we find that extending
[[Page 44748]]
the Commission's rulings to state level franchising actions and
regulations furthers the goals of the Cable Act. Unreasonable barriers
to entry imposed by any franchising authority--state or local--
frustrate the goals of competition and deployment. In the First Report
and Order, we found that removing regulatory obstacles posed by local
franchising authorities would further these goals. We now find that
this policy rationale applies with equal force to franchising actions
taken at the state level.
116. We disagree that extending the Commission's rulings to state-
level franchising and regulation, however, will eliminate the benefits
of state-level action. We are not persuaded that extending the
Commission's rulings to state-level actions would prevent--or even
discourage--state-level franchising and regulation. Indeed, applying
the Commission's rulings to state-level action will merely ensure that
the same rules that apply to LFAs also apply at the state level.\121\
This consistency is itself beneficial, ensuring that various statutory
provisions--such as sections 621 and 622--are interpreted uniformly
throughout the country. As one commenter notes, ``state-level cable
regulations may be modeled on the federal act, and so, allowing
disparate interpretations of the same language could lead to confusion
among consumers, regulators, and franchisees.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ For these reasons, we disagree with commenters who argue
that applying the Commission's rules at the state level is contrary
to the Cable Act's purpose of ``assur[ing] that cable systems are
responsive to the needs and interests of the local community.'' The
City of Philadelphia, for example, argues that extending the
Commission's rules to state-level actions would ``unduly restrict
state and local governments from addressing local and hyperlocal
cable-related issues.'' For the reasons discussed above, we are not
convinced that applying our rules to state franchising authorities
will impede the ability of state and local authorities to address
local issues. Rather, by doing so, we ensure that the goals of the
Cable Act, as determined by Congress, including ``encourag[ing] the
growth and development of cable systems,'' are fully realized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
117. Nor should applying our interpretations of the Cable Act to
state-level actions interfere with states' authority to enact general
taxes and regulations. Some commenters express concern that the
Commission's rulings would disturb state franchising laws that apply
more broadly than the Cable Act.\122\ While we decline here to opine on
the application of the Cable Act to specific state laws, we note that
these concerns are largely settled by section 622, which excludes ``any
tax, fee, or assessment of general applicability'' from the definition
of franchise fees. Other provisions of the Act similarly make clear
that the Act does not affect state authority regarding matters of
public health, safety, and welfare, to the extent that states exercise
that authority consistent with the express provisions of the Cable Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ For example, California's Digital Infrastructure and Video
Competition Act (DIVCA) assesses an annual administrative fee and
authorizes LFAs to assess on both cable operators and non-cable
video franchise holders, up to a one-percent fee on gross revenues
for PEG, in addition to a state franchise fee of five percent of
gross revenues. The Eastern District of California found that DIVCA
was a law of ``general applicability'' for the purposes of section
622 in Comcast of Sacramento.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
118. Finally, some commenters assert that extending the
Commission's rulings to state-level actions would ``upend carefully
balanced policy decisions by the states.'' \123\ According to
commenters, local governments might wish to refuse these benefits if
they come at the expense of franchise fees--but they will be unable to
do so where they are mandated by state law.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ In Illinois, for example, state law requires that cable
operators provide ``line drops and free basic service to public
buildings.'' The Illinois statute defines a ``service line drop'' as
``the point of connection between a premises and the cable or video
network that enables the premises to receive cable service or video
service.''
\124\ Similarly, one commenter claims that DIVCA reflected a
legislative compromise between cable operators and franchising
authorities that would be upset if the Commission's rules were
extended to state level actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
119. We are not convinced that these concerns justify limiting the
Commission's rulings to local-level actions. Again, our conclusion in
this section will disturb existing state laws only to the extent that
they conflict with the Cable Act and the Commission's rulings
implementing the Act. While this may upset some preexisting legislative
compromises, it will also root out state laws that impose demands and
conditions that Congress and the Commission have found to be
unreasonable. Further, ensuring that the Cable Act is applied uniformly
between state and local franchising authorities is necessary to further
the goals of the Act, and more importantly, is consistent with the
language of the Act. As some commenters have noted, if the Commission
does not apply these requirements to state franchises, states could
pass laws circumventing the Cable Act's limitations on LFAs. That
result would thwart Congress's intent in imposing those limitations.
For these reasons, we conclude that the benefits of extending the
Commission's rulings and interpretations to state-level actions
outweigh any burdens caused by upsetting existing state-level policy
decisions.
120. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated in the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in
this proceeding. The Commission sought written public comment on the
proposals in the Second FNPRM, including comment on the IRFA. The
Commission received one comment on the IRFA. This Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
121. In the Report and Order, we interpret sections of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended that govern how local
franchising authorities may regulate cable operators and cable
television services, with specific focus on issues remanded from the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Sixth Circuit) in
Montgomery County, Md. et al. v. FCC (Montgomery County). The Order
seeks to explain and establish the statutory basis for the Commission's
interpretation of the Act in order to better fulfill the Commission's
goals of eliminating regulatory obstacles in the marketplace for cable
services and encouraging broadband investment and deployment by cable
operators.
122. In the Order, we first conclude that cable-related, ``in-
kind'' contributions required by a cable franchise agreement are
franchise fees subject to the statutory five percent cap on franchise
fees set forth in section 622 of the Act. We base this conclusion on
the broad definition of franchise fee in section 622, which is not
limited to monetary contributions. We interpret the Act's limited
exceptions to the definition of franchise fee, including an exemption
for capital costs related to public, educational, and governmental
access (PEG) channels, such as equipment costs or those associated with
building a facility. We also reaffirm that this rule applies to both
new entrants and incumbent cable operators. Second, we conclude that
under the Act, LFAs may not regulate the provision of most non-cable
services, including broadband internet access service, offered over a
cable system by an incumbent cable operator that is not a common
carrier. Finally, we conclude that Commission guidance concerning LFAs'
regulation of cable operators should apply to state-level franchising
actions and regulations that impose requirements on local franchising.
123. The Order is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 201(b),
230, 303, 602, 621, 622, 624, and 636 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201, 230, 303, 522, 541, 542,
544, and 556.
[[Page 44749]]
The types of small entities that may be affected by the Order fall
within the following categories: small businesses, small organizations,
small governmental jurisdictions; wired telecommunications carriers;
cable companies and systems; cable system operators; and open video
services.
124. Only one commenter, the City of Newton Massachusetts,
submitted a comment that specifically responded to the IRFA.\125\ The
City of Newton suggests that a transition period of at least six years
is needed to satisfy the Commission's Regulatory Flexibility Act
obligation to minimize significant financial impacts on small
communities and non-profit organizations. The City of Newton argues
that this transition period is needed to allow time for affected
parties to: (1) Identify cable-related in kind contributions which
count against the franchise fee cap; (2) reach agreement on the
valuation of cable-related in-kind contributions; (3) resolve any
disputes with respect to those issues; and (4) adjust their contractual
commitments in light of any prospective reduction in franchise fee
revenues (and the timing of those reductions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ Letter from Ruthanne Fuller, Mayor and Issuing Authority,
and Alan D. Mandl, Assistant City Solicitor, City of Newton,
Massachusetts, to Chairman Pai and Commissioners Carr, O'Rielly and
Rosenworcel, FCC, MB Docket No. 05-311, at 7 (filed Nov. 14, 2018)
(City of Newton Letter); City of Newton Comments at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
125. The rules adopted in the Order will impose no additional
reporting or recordkeeping requirements. We expect the compliance
requirements--namely, modifying and renewing cable franchise agreements
to comport with the law--will have only a de minimis effect on small
entities. As ACA explains, ``most franchising authorities understand
the limits of their authority and do not impose unlawful requirements
on [small cable operators].'' \126\ LFAs will continue to review and
make decisions on applications for cable franchises as they already do,
and any modifications to the local franchising process resulting from
these rules will further streamline that process. The rules will
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. The rules will also 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. The same can be said of franchising at the state level. The
rules will help streamline the franchising process by ensuring that
applicable statutory provisions are interpreted uniformly throughout
the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ Letter from Ross Lieberman, Senior Vice President,
Government Affairs ACA Connects--America's Communications
Association, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 1 (July 25,
2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
126. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives 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.'' \127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1) through (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
127. To the extent that these rules are matters of statutory
interpretation, we find that the adopted rules are statutorily mandated
and therefore no meaningful alternatives exist.\128\ Moreover, as noted
above, the rules are expected to have only a de minimis effect on small
entities. The rules will also streamline the local franchising process
by providing additional guidance to LFAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ For this reason, we disagree with NATOA et al. that our
actions will affect service to senior citizens, or to schools,
libraries, and other public buildings and that this analysis is
inadequate. See Letter from Joseph Van Eaton et al., Counsel to Anne
Arundel County, et al. to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC at 2
(July 24, 2019). This argument is essentially that the statutory cap
does not afford local governments enough money to serve their
constituents, and we do not have the authority to amend the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
128. Treating cable-related, in-kind contributions as ``franchise
fees'' subject to the statutory five percent franchise fee cap will
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 will help to ensure that
local franchising requirements do not deter small cable operators from
investing in new services and facilities. Similarly, applying these
rules at the state level helps to ensure that such deterrence does not
come from state-level franchising requirements either. Finally,
applying the Commission's mixed-use rule to all incumbent cable
operators helps to ensure that all small cable operators may compete on
a level playing field because incumbent cable operators will now be
subject to the same rule that applies to competitive cable operators.
We disagree with the City of Newton's argument that we should afford
small entities six years to implement these changes--the issues that
City of Newton raises are matters of statutory interpretation, and the
Communications Act does not provide for the implementation period that
the City of Newton requests.
129. This document does not contain new or revised information
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In addition, therefore, it
does not contain any new or modified ``information burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees'' pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4).
130. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority
found in sections 1, 4(i), 201(b), 230, 303, 602, 621, 622, 624, and
636 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,
154(i), 201(b), 230, 303, 522, 541, 542, 544, and 556, this Third
Report and Order is adopted. It is further ordered that the
Commission's rules are hereby amended and such rule amendments shall be
effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. It is
further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Third
Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration. It is further ordered that, pursuant to section
801(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A),
the Commission shall send a copy of the Third Report and Order to
Congress and the Government Accountability Office.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76
Cable television, Communications, internet, Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends part 76 of title 47 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) as set forth below:
[[Page 44750]]
PART 76--MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE
0
1. The authority citation for part 76 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 201, 230, 301, 302,
302a, 303, 303a, 307, 308, 309, 312, 315, 317, 325, 338, 339, 340,
341, 503, 521, 522, 531, 532, 534, 535, 536, 537, 541, 542, 543,
544, 544a, 545, 548, 549, 552, 554, 556, 558, 560, 561, 571, 572,
573.
0
2. Revise subpart C heading to read as follows:
Subpart C--Cable Franchising
0
3. Add Sec. 76.42 to read as follows:
Sec. 76.42 In-kind contributions.
(a) In-kind, cable-related contributions are ``franchise fees''
subject to the five percent cap set forth in 47 U.S.C. 542(b). Such
contributions, which count toward the five percent cap at their fair
market value, include any non-monetary contributions related to the
provision of cable service by a cable operator as a condition or
requirement of a local franchise, including but not limited to:
(1) Costs attributable to the provision of free or discounted cable
service to public buildings, including buildings leased by or under
control of the franchising authority;
(2) Costs in support of public, educational, or governmental access
facilities, with the exception of capital costs; and
(3) Costs attributable to the construction of institutional
networks.
(b) In-kind, cable-related contributions do not include the costs
of complying with build-out and customer service requirements.
0
4. Add Sec. 76.43 to read as follows:
Sec. 76.43 Mixed-use rule.
A franchising authority may not regulate the provision of any
services other than cable services offered over the cable system of a
cable operator, with the exception of channel capacity on institutional
networks.
[FR Doc. 2019-18230 Filed 8-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P