Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992

Last updated
Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992
Great Seal of the United States (obverse).svg
Long titleAn act to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide increased consumer protection and to promote increased competition in the cable television and related markets, and for other purposes.
Nicknames1992 Cable Act;
Cable Television Protection and Competition Act
Enacted bythe 102nd United States Congress
EffectiveOctober 8, 1992
Citations
Public law 102-385
Statutes at Large 106  Stat.   1460
Legislative history

The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (also known as the 1992 Cable Act) is a United States federal law which required cable television systems to carry most local broadcast television channels and prohibited cable operators from charging local broadcasters to carry their signal.

Contents

In adopting the 1992 Cable Act, Congress stated that it wanted to promote the availability of diverse views and information, to rely on the marketplace to the maximum extent possible to achieve that availability, to ensure cable operators continue to expand their capacity and program offerings, to ensure cable operators do not have undue market power, and to ensure consumer interests are protected in the receipt of cable service. The Federal Communications Commission adopted regulations to implement the Act and its goals.

Legislative history

Senator John Danforth, the sponsor of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act John danforth.JPG
Senator John Danforth, the sponsor of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act

The Legislation was passed by the 102nd United States Congress and sponsored by Senator John C. Danforth from Missouri. The act was first introduced to the Senate on January 14, 1991. The United States House of Representatives passed the bill on September 17, 1992 (voting 280–128), and the United States Senate passed it on September 22, 1992 (voting 74–25). It was vetoed by President George H. W. Bush on October 3, 1992. After the veto of the President, it again passed Senate over veto on October 5, 1992 (voting 74–25) and on the same day, it passed the House as well (voting 308–114). The Act became a Public Law No: 102-385 on October 5, 1992; [1] it was the only veto override under Bush.

The Communications Act of 1934 was first amended in October 1984 by the U.S. Congress' Cable Communications Act of 1984. The general purpose of Cable Communications Act of 1984 was to define jurisdictional boundaries for regulating cable television systems among federal, state and local authorities. [2]

After 1984 Act had been enacted, the failure to balance the unequal growth within provider and subscriber has become problematic. While there was an increase in the number of households subscribing to cable television system and channel capacity of cable systems, the competition among distributors of cable services held back. The rates for cable services increased excessively, surpassing inflation. As a result, the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 had been enacted by the U.S. Congress. The Act had the goal to restore Federal regulation of the cable television industry and respond to complaints about poor cable service and high rates. [2]

The chairman of the House Telecommunications and Finance subcommittee and Democrat of Massachusetts Representative Edward J. Markey said "This is a pro-consumer, pro-competition bill designed to rein in the renegades in the cable industry who are gouging consumers with repeated rate increases". [3]

Provisions

The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 addressed various areas such as ensuring the growth of cable operators under effective competition, expanding the diversity of view and information through increased availability of cable television to the public, and protecting the interests of video programmers and consumers. [4]

In order to promote competition among cable services, the act restrained federal agencies or states from regulating the rates for the provision of cable service. In the legislature, when describing competition among cable providers, the term "effective" was used and defined. The term "effective competition" meant that a fewer than 30 percent of the households in the franchise area subscribe to the cable service of a cable system. The rate regulation were to take effect 180 days after the date of enactment, and the Federal Communications Commission could prescribe regulations on the day of enactment. [4]

The assurance of increased availability of cable television to the public was achieved through making the carriage of local commercial television signals an obligation for cable operators. The legislation states that each cable operator must carry the signals of local commercial television stations and qualified low-power broadcasting stations. Carriage of additional broadcast television signals on such system was stated to be at the discretion of such operator. In detail, a cable operator of a cable system that had 12 or fewer usable activated channels had to carry at least three local commercial television stations' signals. The local commercial television station refers to any full-power television station with a broadcast license and operating on a channel regularly assigned to its community by the commission that was within the same television market as the cable system. Television stations could opt out of cable carriage by invoking retransmission consent. [4]

In contribution to diversifying channel selection for the public, Section 5 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 also requires each cable operator of a cable system to carry the signals of qualified non-commercial educational television stations. [4]

The consumer protection and customer service is ensured through Section 8. To suggest change in the treatment of such public, Section 632 of the Communications Act of 1934 had been amended. Firstly, the franchising authority was to establish and enforce customer service requirements of the cable operator. Secondly, the commission had to establish standards, which would urge cable operators to fulfill their customer service requirements within 180 days of enactment of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. Lastly, consumer protection laws and customer service requirement agreement standards set by the commission had to be strictly followed. [4]

Program access rules

In order to allow competition and fair access to programming by direct-broadcast satellite providers, the act also contained a provision that required cable channels to offer their carriage to satellite providers at reasonable rates if they were owned by a cable provider themselves. [5] [6]

The rule had a notable loophole since it took effect only if the channel used satellites as part of its distribution infrastructure. That came to be known as the terrestrial loophole. [6] It was famously used by several regional sports networks directly owned by cable companies, such as Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia (owned by the locally-based Comcast cable company), Cox Cable's 4SD in San Diego (a local channel that carried San Diego Padres coverage), and MSG (then owned by Cablevision, it has since been spun out into a separate entity). As they did not use satellite uplinks, their owners were able to selectively prevent competing television providers from having access to the lucrative networks and then used their exclusivity to attract subscribers from competing services (such as satellite providers). For example, MSG used the loophole to prevent the competing Verizon FiOS service from carrying its high-definition feed. [6] [7]

The FCC began an effort to remove the loophole following complaints by AT&T and considered 4SD's refusal to allow carriage on its U-verse service (but still allowing cable companies in other areas of the city to carry it) to be an anti-competitive practice. The company cited that its inability to carry 4SD had hurt the market share of U-verse television in San Diego by taking it below its average share in other markets. In 2010, the FCC voted to modify the rules to remove the loophole. [7]

In October 2012, the FCC voted to sunset the program access rules. The commission argued that the rule was antiquated since satellite and IPTV-based competitors had become capable of sustaining viable competition to cable. The FCC will still address discriminatory carriage practices but only on a case-by-base basis. [5]

Criticism

After the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 had been enacted, there was a district court ruling pressing for change in the Act during the following year 1993. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson of the district court in Washington did support regulation of cable rates by the 1992 Cable Act saying that horizontal-integration limitation between cable operators and broadcast stations with local cable system was intended to promote competition by preventing concentration of cable systems connected under the hands of a few companies. On the other hand, the Judge stated that Cable Act had not specified limits on horizontal integration thus, ordered the Federal Communications Commission to come up with regulations. The regulation would require a cable operator to construct "reasonable limits" on the number of subscribers they could reach. [8] [9]

Impact

The Congress' passage of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 authorized broadcast stations to demand payment from cable systems that carry them. Nearing the monetary agreement deadline and retransmission effective date on October 6, 1993, [10] there was an incremental conflict between broadcast stations and cable systems. If cable systems failed to meet certain consensus, it was to be dropped from the station's lineups.

The two sides of the story can be described as follows: broadcast stations demanded compensation on a per-subscriber basis from cable operators insisting that its production worth a value. Cable companies on the other hand took a pro-subscriber side, saying that what is free already –e.g., households with antennas can receive a signal for free –should remain free. [11]

Another media source have revealed that, on the issue of cable operators "must-carry" cable television broadcasters option stated in the Cable Act of 1992, both sides showed signs of bewilderment lost in the 500-page law. [10] [ dubious – discuss ]

Consequently, as a way of satisfying the needs of both broadcast stations and cable companies, new cable channels that were run by broadcast networks and carried by cable systems were created. [11]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cable television</span> Television content transmitted via signals on coaxial cable

Cable television is a system of delivering television programming to consumers via radio frequency (RF) signals transmitted through coaxial cables, or in more recent systems, light pulses through fibre-optic cables. This contrasts with broadcast television, in which the television signal is transmitted over-the-air by radio waves and received by a television antenna ; or satellite television, in which the television signal is transmitted over-the-air by radio waves from a communications satellite and received by a satellite dish on the roof. FM radio programming, high-speed Internet, telephone services, and similar non-television services may also be provided through these cables. Analog television was standard in the 20th century, but since the 2000s, cable systems have been upgraded to digital cable operation.

Communications in the United States include extensive industries and distribution networks in print and telecommunication. The primary telecom regulator of communications in the United States is the Federal Communications Commission.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Communications Commission</span> Independent U.S. government agency

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government that regulates communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable across the United States. The FCC maintains jurisdiction over the areas of broadband access, fair competition, radio frequency use, media responsibility, public safety, and homeland security.

Public-access television is traditionally a form of non-commercial mass media where the general public can create content television programming which is narrowcast through cable television specialty channels. Public-access television was created in the United States between 1969 and 1971 by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), under Chairman Dean Burch, based on pioneering work and advocacy of George Stoney, Red Burns, and Sidney Dean.

In cable television, governments apply a must-carry regulation stating that locally licensed television stations must be carried on a cable provider's system.

Superstation is a term in North American broadcasting that has several meanings. Commonly, a "superstation" is a form of distant signal, a broadcast television signal—usually a commercially licensed station—that is retransmitted via communications satellite or microwave relay to multichannel television providers over a broad area beyond its primary terrestrial signal range.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mediacom</span> American cable TV company

Mediacom Communications Corporation is the United States' fifth-largest cable television provider based on the number of video subscribers, and among the leading cable operators focused on serving smaller cities and towns. The company has a significant concentration of customers in the Midwest and Southeast, and is the largest broadband provider in Iowa. Founded in 1995 by Rocco B. Commisso, the current owner of the New York Cosmos and ACF Fiorentina. Mediacom is headquartered in New York and incorporated in Delaware, United States. Formerly a publicly traded firm, it went private in a $600 million transaction in March 2011 and is owned solely by Commisso as of 2011.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984</span> Act of United States Congress

The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 was an act of Congress passed on October 30, 1984 to promote competition and deregulate the cable television industry. The act established a national policy for the regulation of cable television communications by federal, state, and local authorities. Conservative Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona wrote and supported the act, which amended the Communications Act of 1934 with the insertion of "Title VI—Cable Communications". After more than three years of debate, six provisions were enacted to represent the intricate compromise between cable operators and municipalities.

YurView California is an American cable television channel serving San Diego, California, owned by Cox Communications, which carries the channel primarily on its San Diego area systems on channel 4.

Syndication exclusivity is a federal law implemented by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the United States that is designed to protect a local television station's rights to syndicated television programs by granting exclusive broadcast rights to the station for that program in their local market, usually defined by a station's Nielsen Designated Market Area.

Cable television first became available in the United States in 1948. By 1989, 53 million U.S. households received cable television subscriptions, with 60 percent of all U.S. households doing so in 1992. Most cable viewers in the U.S. reside in the suburbs and tend to be middle class; cable television is less common in low income, urban, and rural areas.

Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC is the general title of two rulings of the United States Supreme Court on the constitutionality of must-carry regulations enforced by the Federal Communications Commission on cable television operators. In the first ruling, known colloquially as Turner I, 512 U.S. 622 (1994), the Supreme Court held that cable television companies were First Amendment speakers who enjoyed free speech rights when determining what channels and content to carry on their networks, but demurred on whether the must-carry rules at issue were restrictions of those rights. After a remand to a lower court for fact-finding on the economic effects of the then-recent Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act, the dispute returned to the Supreme Court. In Turner II, 520 U.S. 180 (1997), the Supreme Court held that must-carry rules for cable television companies were not restrictions of their free speech rights because the U.S. government had a compelling interest in enabling the distribution of media content from multiple sources and in preserving local television.

Retransmission consent is a provision of the 1992 United States Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act that requires cable operators and other multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) to obtain permission from commercial broadcasters before carrying their programming.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Virtual Digital Cable</span> US multichannel video distributor

VDC Corporation was a distributor of multichannel video programming that delivered live cable television through broadband connected computers in the United States. They developed and were involved in the distribution and delivery of live cable television programming channels.

Multichannel television in the United States has been available since at least 1948. The United States is served by multichannel television through cable television systems, direct-broadcast satellite providers, and various other wireline video providers; among the largest television providers in the U.S. are YouTube TV, DirecTV, Altice USA, Charter Communications, Comcast, Dish Network, Verizon Communications, and Cox Communications. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 defines a multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) as "a person such as, but not limited to, a cable operator, a multichannel multipoint distribution service, a direct broadcast satellite service, or a television receive-only satellite program distributor, who makes available for purchase, by subscribers or customers, multiple channels of video programming", where a channel is defined as a "signaling path provided by a cable television system."

A la carte pay television, also referred to as pick-and-pay, is a pricing model for pay television services in which customers subscribe to individual television channels. For subscription distribution services, a la carte pricing contrasts with the prevailing model of bundling, in which channels are grouped into packages that are offered on an all-or-nothing basis.

Fee-for-carriage, value-for-signal, negotiation for value, or the "TV tax" all refer to a proposed Canadian television regulatory policy which would require cable and satellite television companies to compensate conventional, over-the-air television stations for the right to carry their local signals. Such a system has long existed in the United States, under the name of retransmission consent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Satellite television in the United States</span>

Currently, there are two primary satellite television providers of subscription based service available to United States consumers: DirecTV and Dish Network, which have 21 and 10 million subscribers respectively.

<i>Satellite Broadcasting & Communications Assn v. FCC</i>

Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association v. FCC, 275 F.3d 337 was a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Congress required satellite television carriers to carry all requesting local broadcast stations in the market where the carrier voluntarily decides to carry one local station in order to, in part, preserve a multiplicity of local broadcast outlets for over-the-air-viewers who do not subscribe either to satellite or cable service.

A carriage dispute is a disagreement over the right to "carry", that is, retransmit, a broadcaster's signal. Carriage disputes first occurred between broadcasters and cable companies and now include direct broadcast satellite and other multichannel video programming distributors.

References

  1. ↑ "Bill Summary & Status – 102nd Congress (1991–1992) – S.12 – All Information – THOMAS (Library of Congress)". Thomas.loc.gov. Retrieved 2011-06-30.[ permanent dead link ]
  2. 1 2 "General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet". Fcc.gov. Retrieved 2011-06-30.
  3. ↑ "COMPANY NEWS; House Gets Cable TV Bill – New York Times". The New York Times . 1992-03-26. Retrieved 2011-06-30.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 "Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-07-29.
  5. 1 2 "FCC lets program access rules expire". Los Angeles Times. 5 October 2012. Retrieved 24 April 2014.
  6. 1 2 3 "FCC throws Cox a curve on Padres". U-T San Diego . Retrieved 7 October 2012.
  7. 1 2 "FCC Votes To Close Terrestrial RSN Exemption – Count Is 4-1; McDowell Expects To See Court Challenge". Multichannel.com. Retrieved 2010-03-15.
  8. ↑ Perl, Daniel (17 September 1993). "Cable Act's Limits on Firms' Number Of Subscribers Struck Down by Court". Wall Street Journal. p. B7. ProQuest   398346490.
  9. ↑ "Cable Television Industry Is Handed a Legal Setback". The New York Times. 17 September 1993.
  10. 1 2 Closed Access logo transparent.svg http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BCRC?srchtp=adv&c=1&ste=31&tbst=tsVS&tab=2&aca=nwmg&bConts=2&RNN=A13774026&docNum=A13774026&locID=nysl_me_nyuniv(password-protected)
  11. 1 2 "THE MEDIA BUSINESS: Television; To pay or not to pay? A war of words heats up between cable systems and broadcasters. – New York Times". The New York Times . 1993-08-23. Retrieved 2011-06-30.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.