Cable Television Protection and Competition Act
Encyclopedia
The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of the United States Congress
which was approved in 1992, required cable systems to carry most local broadcast channels and prohibited cable operators from charging local broadcasters to carry their signal.
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.
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 in January 14th, 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 the 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 House as well (voting 308-114). The Act became a Public Law No: 102-385 in October 5, 1992.
The Act was enacted by the Senate and House of the Representatives of the United States of America. It was passed over President Bush's veto. The act was created in order 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.
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.
After 1984 Act had been enacted, the failure to balance the unequal growth within provider and subscriber has become problematic. While the number of households subscribing to cable television system and channel capacity of cable systems increased, 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.
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"
In order to promote competition among cable services, the act refrained Federal agency or State 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, while Federal Communications Commission
’s authority could prescribe regulations on the day of enactment.
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 were required to carry at least three local commercial television stations’ signals. Here, the local commercial television station refers to any full power television broadcast license
d station and operating on a channel regularly assigned to its community by the commission that is within the same television market as the cable system. Television stations could opt out of cable carriage by invoking retransmission consent
.
In contribution to diversifying channel selection for the public, the 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 a qualified Non-commercial educational
television stations.
The consumer protection and customer service is ensured through section 8 of the legislature. In order to suggest change in the treatment of such public, the Section 632 of the Communications Act of 1934 had been amended. First, franchising authority was to establish and enforce customer service requirements of the cable operator. Second, the Commission had to establish standards that 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.
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 hadn’t 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.
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⎯that is households with antennas can receive a signal for free⎯should stay free.
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.
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.
United States Congress
The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Congress meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C....
which was approved in 1992, required cable systems to carry most local broadcast channels and prohibited cable operators from charging local broadcasters to carry their signal.
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
102nd United States Congress
-House of Representatives:- Senate :* President:Dan Quayle * President pro tempore: Robert Byrd - Majority leadership :* Majority Leader: George Mitchell* Majority Whip: Wendell Ford- Minority leadership :...
and sponsored by Senator John C. Danforth from Missouri. The act was first introduced to the Senate in January 14th, 1991. The United States House of Representatives
United States House of Representatives
The United States House of Representatives is one of the two Houses of the United States Congress, the bicameral legislature which also includes the Senate.The composition and powers of the House are established in Article One of the Constitution...
passed the bill on September 17, 1992 (voting 280-128), and the United States Senate
United States Senate
The United States Senate is the upper house of the bicameral legislature of the United States, and together with the United States House of Representatives comprises the United States Congress. The composition and powers of the Senate are established in Article One of the U.S. Constitution. Each...
passed it on September 22, 1992 (voting 74-25). It was vetoed by the 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 House as well (voting 308-114). The Act became a Public Law No: 102-385 in October 5, 1992.
The Act was enacted by the Senate and House of the Representatives of the United States of America. It was passed over President Bush's veto. The act was created in order to amend the Communications Act of 1934
Communications Act of 1934
The Communications Act of 1934 is a United States federal law, enacted as Public Law Number 416, Act of June 19, 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, by the 73rd Congress, signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, codified as Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the United States Code, et seq. The Act replaced the...
to provide increased consumer protection and to promote increased competition in the cable television
Cable television
Cable television is a system of providing television programs to consumers via radio frequency signals transmitted to televisions through coaxial cables or digital light pulses through fixed optical fibers located on the subscriber's property, much like the over-the-air method used in traditional...
and related markets, and for other purposes.
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.
After 1984 Act had been enacted, the failure to balance the unequal growth within provider and subscriber has become problematic. While the number of households subscribing to cable television system and channel capacity of cable systems increased, 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.
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"
Provisions of the act
The Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 encompassed 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.In order to promote competition among cable services, the act refrained Federal agency or State 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, while Federal Communications Commission
Federal Communications Commission
The Federal Communications Commission is an independent agency of the United States government, created, Congressional statute , and with the majority of its commissioners appointed by the current President. The FCC works towards six goals in the areas of broadband, competition, the spectrum, the...
’s authority could prescribe regulations on the day of enactment.
The assurance of increased availability of cable television to the public was achieved through making the carriage of local commercial television
Commercial Television
Commercial Television was the third free-to-air broadcast television station in Hong Kong. It first went on air in 1975, and ceased transmissions in 1978.-History:...
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
Low-power broadcasting
Low-power broadcasting is electronic broadcasting at very low power and low cost, to a small community area.The terms "low-power broadcasting" and "micropower broadcasting" should not be used interchangeably, because the markets are not the same...
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 were required to carry at least three local commercial television stations’ signals. Here, the local commercial television station refers to any full power television broadcast license
Broadcast license
A broadcast license or broadcast license is a specific type of spectrum license that grants the licensee the privilege to use a portion of the radio frequency spectrum in a given geographical area for broadcasting purposes. The licenses are generally straddled with additional restrictions that...
d station and operating on a channel regularly assigned to its community by the commission that is within the same television market as the cable system. Television stations could opt out of cable carriage by invoking retransmission consent
Retransmission consent
Retransmission consent is an option granted to US television stations as part of the law that granted such stations the option to elect must-carry rights. Under retransmission consent, a full-power US television station may elect to negotiate with a cable system operator for carriage of its...
.
In contribution to diversifying channel selection for the public, the 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 a qualified Non-commercial educational
Non-commercial educational
The term non-commercial educational applies to a radio station or TV station that does not accept on air advertisements , as defined in the United States by the Federal Communications Commission . NCE stations do not pay broadcast license fees for their non-profit uses of the radio spectrum...
television stations.
The consumer protection and customer service is ensured through section 8 of the legislature. In order to suggest change in the treatment of such public, the Section 632 of the Communications Act of 1934 had been amended. First, franchising authority was to establish and enforce customer service requirements of the cable operator. Second, the Commission had to establish standards that 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.
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 JacksonThomas Penfield Jackson
Thomas Penfield Jackson is a former United States District Court Judge for the District of Columbia....
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 hadn’t specified limits on horizontal integration
Horizontal integration
In microeconomics and strategic management, the term horizontal integration describes a type of ownership and control. It is a strategy used by a business or corporation that seeks to sell a type of product in numerous markets...
thus, ordered the Federal Communications Commission
Federal Communications Commission
The Federal Communications Commission is an independent agency of the United States government, created, Congressional statute , and with the majority of its commissioners appointed by the current President. The FCC works towards six goals in the areas of broadband, competition, the spectrum, the...
to come up with regulations. The regulation would require a cable operator to construct “reasonable limits” on the number of subscribers they could reach.
Impact
The Congress’ passage of the Cable Television 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 in October 6th, 1993, 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. In any case, the only victims were the innocent cable subscribers.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⎯that is households with antennas can receive a signal for free⎯should stay free.
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.
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.
See also
- Communications Act of 1934Communications Act of 1934The Communications Act of 1934 is a United States federal law, enacted as Public Law Number 416, Act of June 19, 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, by the 73rd Congress, signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, codified as Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the United States Code, et seq. The Act replaced the...
- Cable Communications Act of 1984
- Telecommunications Act of 1996Telecommunications Act of 1996The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the first major overhaul of United States telecommunications law in nearly 62 years, amending the Communications Act of 1934. This Act, signed by President Bill Clinton, was a major stepping stone towards the future of telecommunications, since this was the...