CHIEF Of STAFF: ALLEN B. WRIGHT
FRANK D. LUCAS
6TH DISTRICT. OKLAHOMA
COMMITTEES:
AGRICULTURE
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
Dear Ms. Belzin:
1)-7-£1
3
~nllrC5Sof thr !initro~tatC5~'). ",.:::;;"::,",
~ousrof 'Rrprrsmtatiors R'-l\~~\I /OKLAHO~~~I~;~5~;~102-3422
~Qshington.'fll!:20515-1~,\\'\-S\,\3 :uY\';:::'";~
\§)\J~, (Jf\IJI'" 14(5) 233-11224
1007 MAIN STREET
October 21, 1994 WOOOWARD,OK73802
14051 256-5752
~~q
RECEIVED
JAN J21995
FEDERAL COIUMUNICA nO
OFFICE OFSEC:~OMM/S810N
I am writing to request that you review the enclosed'~~te~
from a constituent of mine who supports the National Rur:il.
Telecommunications Cooperative's (NRTC) comments regarding the
implementation of Section 19 of the Cable Television Consumer
Protection and Competition Act of 1992.
Ms. Lauren Belzin
Acting Director, Leg. Affairs
Federal Communications Comm·EX PARTE OR LATE FILED
Room 808
1919 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20554
2206 RAYBURN HOUSE OfFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20515-3606
12021 225-5565
I would appreciate it if you would look into this matter and
provide a detailed response to Mr. Kennedy's comments. In
particular, I would appreciate if you would address Mr. Kennedy's
concern about the discriminatory pricing issue and how it is
being affected by the Cable Act's implementation process.
Thank you for looking into this matter. I will be anxiously
awaiting a response.
Sincerely,
FRANK D. LUCAS
Member of Congress
FDL/CC
d-
No. ot Copiesrec'd~::..-_-
UstABCDE
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
". ".'-c-.~
.. .-...
,--;--.- -....
........'~."'-
' ' -
i --
---
i
I
...,,""............'
I
.,
.
-
-
~v .. -.:1' l;"."vi.,..'.'~l'il: ..'I.,.)l\'l,,,"..;~'ji;,:, -', ... '....vl~0
.v;7.~~0_:~~
""Ull~ltJt~Ul C,.IIL ulnu.u;,;,;~;--
Raul or J4ramQdaa
tlulhllltln, B?~11-_
FAX COVER SIIEET
; TIME:
-----
DAD:~
.
::.??mCllrta'-~-----
II tIaeTe II ? pnbIII' wIIb lIle faa,.....~.
----...
", "",
,
...........'j. ....'
FRANK D. l.UCAS
m Ol$TIllCT,o«LAkQMA
"Of~YIII~NHOUSf Cll'l'1Cl eULDIM;
...."SItINGTON. DC _,.._
12OZ\2~
~llt"'"
A","':U\,l\"JflIt
GO'o'lR~H1'O!'lRAl\OH$
~IHI\f "'TAP,: AU.£N II, WIllGHT
~ngrf5Sof thr~ni[td~tattB
!tOUt of'RqJttSmmttou
Babington.Il~2~t1-)600
October 27, 1994
DlSllIlCT CIRCE!'
)fl, "'Nil A. -.00A-..cNut
1lOO"" '..
O,"-,,"OMA CR"V, OK 1'0102 '.2:11
{~I.t·"1'
""'Ga. RlJlLDlNG
·.O,II/\W:IIII)
1IlD.0Il.J1'G'
~tM:_14
1110" "-I1lIFET
_AII\rw;,_
'<fOtt~.,'t)
I
Ms.Laur~nBelzin
~ct1nqDlrector,~eg.Affairs
Federal Communications Comm.
Room 808
1919 MSt~eet,N.W.
raehington, DC 20554
Dt!d..L: Ms. Belzin:
I
1 amwr1t.1.I1,~\,.u.l.'eque~tehi:1t lOU reviowth~pnr.losed ";tter
frU!\1 d.conetit:~cntof mine who supports t.he Nat10IlCil Rural
TQlcoommunicaeions Cooperative's (NRTe) comments regarding the
,implementation u( Sl!lction 19 of the Cable Telev; 11:01 on Cousumer
ProLection and competition~ctof 1992.
1 woulaap~~eciateit if you would look int.n this matter auu
lJL " .....ide a deea.ilod response to Mr - Kenneay' sconlIl\~m:,s.In
p;.rticular, T wOUlaapprecla.L~1£ tOU would i:1ddrcolC Mr.ICen:n;:;:>Ay'~
concern abouL the discrimini:l.torypricin~iSF,ll1p. and bow it is
:being afi"p.C':t:cd by the Cable Ar.t.' s implementatiwl process.
ThaIl~y-ou for looking into thismatt~r_I will be anx.luu.sly
:awaieing~r~spons?.
Sincerely,
FRANK D. LUCAS
M~mb&rot conqrp.ss
pm./cc
:UUJ/UL~
_ '...' vti" ..1~i... ' 0 Ul'i.lil
Al/
8
04 -.
PANHANDLE TILICOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.
,\ Wi!' oily Own"" SIll ",idi.try fir PANHANDLE fE'lEPHONE COOPERATIVE, INC.
~-------------------------
CARY:ICENNEOY
Chii:,'~,'t;',·i.I~}VI'( l""i('(',
July 25, 1994
The Honorable Prank Lucas
U. S. HOWie of Representativea
2206 Rayburn Office Building
Washinston. DC 20515
Dear Representative Lucas:
i
As , telecommunications company. PTSI is an NRTe member providing television progra.mming to
cUstomers in rural Oklahoma. We are writing to support the Comments of the NatioDaI Rural
Tel~mmunicationsCooperative (NRTe) in the matter of Implementation of Section 19 of the Cable
Television Consumer Protection and Competition At:t of 1992. Annual Assessment of the Status of
Competition in the Market for the DeUvery ofVideo Prognwunlag. CS Docket No. 94-48.
PT51's consumen live in rural areas where families have little choice other than satellite for their
television programming. With our consumers living in rural areas where cable seIVice is not available,
it is imperative that we have accas to all programming at fair rates, analogous to rates paid by cable.
At present, PTSI is being charged a higher rate for cable and broadcast programming tham
comparatively sized cable companies in our area.
Discriminatory pricing is Dot only harmful to the service provider, but it also huns the consumer due
to the higher rates they are forced to pay. Why should cable companies in our area receive
programming at lower rates than PTSI?
It was PTSrl understanding that the discrimbuuory pricing iAue had been I'8Olved with the passqe of
the 1992 Cable Act. PTSI supports NRTCs position that the FCC should act to enforce the objectives
of Congress as provided in the 1992 Cable Act.
We urge you to support our position at the FCC that action is needed to correct the problems created
by discriminatory prtdng in the cable ud broadcast programming industry.
Very truly yours,
J~f'~
Gary Kennedy
Chief Executive Officer
... -... ..... '.......,." I ...
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554
NOV 1 4 1994
The Honorable Robert G. Torricelli
U.S. House of Representatives
2159 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-5061
Dear Congressman Torricelli:
IN REPLY 'l.EFER TO;
CN-9401876
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Richard Lustgarten, Borough
Attorney for the Borough of Fair Lawn, New Jersey, concerning the complaint med by the
Borough of Fair Lawn which the Federal Communications Commission considered to have
been med late. On February 28, 1994, the Borough attempted to fax to the Commission a
complaint against Cablevision of New Jersey's September 1, 1993 programming service
rates. Given that February 28 was the deadline for receiving such complaints, many other
complaints were faxed to the Commission on that date, but some did not arrive until
March 1.
The Borough's complaint was one of the late arrivals and was returned as untimely.
While the Borough of Fair Lawn did not fIle an appeal of this action, a number of other
complainants appealed and their appeals are pending before the Commission.
In any event, the Commission will be reviewing the cable rates for the Borough of
Fair Lawn. This is because only one valid complaint is needed to initiate Commission
review of a cable operator's programming service rates, and the Commission did receive two
other timely moo programming service complaints directed against the Borough's cable
operator.
I trust this response is informative and helpful.
Sincerely,
/f1oihi
Me~J.Jones
Chi~~ableSe .
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554
IN REPLY REFER TO:
CN-9405429
NOV 1 5 1994
The Honorable Frank D. Lucas
U.S. House of Representatives
2206 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-3606
Dear Congressman Lt. .is:
Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Gary Kennedy, Chief
Executive Officer of Panhandle Telecommunication Systems, Inc., concerning the
implementation and enforcement of Section 19 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection
and Competition Act of 1992 by the Federal Communications Commission. I appreciate the
-opportunity to respond. ..
Mr. Kennedy expresses his support for the position of the National Rural
Telecommunications Cooperative (NRTC) with respect to the legality under the program
access provisions of the 1992 Cable Act of exclusive contracts between vertically integrated
cable programmers and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers in areas unserved by cable
operators. NRTC has asked the Commission to detennine that such contracts are prohibited.
NRTC's petition for reconsideration of the Commission's program access rulemaking
currently is pending. Consequently, any discussion by Commission personnel concerning
this issue outside the context of the rulemaking would be inappropriate. However, you may
be assured that the Commission will take into account each of the arguments raised by the
NRTC and the other parties to the rulemaking concerning this issue to arrive at a reasoned
decision on reconsideration.
I trust that this information will prove both informative and helpful.
Sincerely,
~
,J,iJ..
Me ith J. Jones
Chie , Cable Se