Telecommunications Inside Wiring, Customer Premises Equipment

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 76

[CS Docket No. 95-184; FCC 95-504]

Telecommunications Inside Wiring, Customer Premises Equipment

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission invites comments on whether certain telephone

and cable inside wiring rules should be harmonized or otherwise changed

in light of the evolving and converging telecommunications

marketplaces. This item will assist the Commission in creating a record

necessary to its ultimate design of rules in this area.

DATES: Comments are due on or before March 18, 1996 and reply comments

are due on or before April 17, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Walke, (202) 416-0847, or Rick

Chessen, (202) 416-1166.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of this document is available for

inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20554,

and may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,

International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street NW.,

Washington DC 20037.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

I. Introduction

1. The Commission issues this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(``NPRM'') to consider changes in our telephone and cable inside wiring

rules and policies in light of today's evolving and converging

telecommunications marketplace. Because this proceeding will consider

the issue of parity between our telephone and cable inside wiring

rules, we are granting a petition for rulemaking (RM 8380) filed

jointly by the Media Access Project, the United States Telephone

Association and Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation (collectively,

``MAP''), to the extent that MAP urges the Commission to establish a

proceeding to consider making cable home wiring rules the same as those

governing telephone inside wiring. We also note that, concurrently with

the adoption of this NPRM, we issue a First Order on Reconsideration

and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket No. 92-260

regarding our cable home wiring rules under Section 16(d) of the Cable

Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (``1992

Cable Act''), Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992), 47 U.S.C.

521, et seq. We incorporate the record in MM Docket No. 92-260 herein

by reference.

2. We expect that at least some consumers may soon have a choice of

two or more telecommunications service companies providing telephony,

data, video programming and other services. Through this NPRM, we seek

comment on whether and how we should revise our current telephone and

cable inside wiring rules to reflect these new realities and promote

competition, by ensuring that the Commission's inside wiring rules

continue to facilitate the development of new and diverse services for

the American public. In particular, and as described more fully below,

we seek comment on whether it is technically and competitively

desirable to create a uniform set of inside wiring rules that would

apply to telephone companies and cable operators alike, or, in the

alternative, that would apply according to the technical

characteristics of the service--e.g., broadband or narrowband--or the

type of wiring used--e.g., fiber optics, coaxial cable or twisted-pair

wiring.

II. Inside Wiring Issues

A. Demarcation Point

1. Background. 3. Section 16(d) of the 1992 Cable Act directs the

Commission to ``prescribe rules concerning the disposition, after a

subscriber to a cable system terminates service, of any cable installed

by the cable operator within the premises of such subscriber.'' The

Commission's regulations implementing Section 16(d) provide that, when

a customer voluntarily terminates service, the cable operator must give

that subscriber the opportunity to acquire the wiring before the

operator removes it. The subscriber may purchase the wiring inside his

or her premises up to the demarcation point. The cable wiring

demarcation point serves such multiple purposes as defining (1) the

location at which the subscriber may control the internal home wiring

if he or she owns it; (2) the point at which an alternative

multichannel video programming service provider would attach its wiring

to the subscriber's wiring in order to provide service; and (3) the

point from which the customer has the right to purchase cable home

wiring upon termination of service. The demarcation point for cable

home wiring in single unit installations is set at (or about) 12 inches

outside of where the cable wire enters the subscriber's premises. The

demarcation point for multiple dwelling units is set at (or about) 12

inches outside of where the cable wire enters the subscriber's

individual dwelling unit.

4. In multiple dwelling unit buildings, cable wiring configurations

fall into two categories: loop-through and non-loop-through. In a loop-

through cable wiring system, a single cable provides service to

multiple subscribers such that every subscriber on the loop must

receive the same cable service. Generally, in a non-loop-through

configuration, each subscriber has a dedicated line (a ``drop'')

running to his or her premises from a common ``feeder line.'' Only the

wiring extending from the demarcation point to inside the subscriber's

premises constitutes home wiring; thus, the drop wiring from the

demarcation point out to the feeder line does not constitute home

wiring. The feeder line is the source of video programming signals for

everyone in the multiple dwelling unit building. A ``tap'' or ``multi-

tap'' is a passive device, installed where the drop meets the feeder,

that extracts portions of the signal strength in the feeder and

distributes individual portions to subscribers. The strength of the

signals within the feeder decreases each time the signals encounter a

tap. In addition, the cable's electrical characteristics cause the

strength of the signals to diminish as the signals pass through the

coaxial cable. As a result of the signal strength lost through taps and

its passage through coaxial cable, periodic amplification is often

required within

[[Page 3658]]

the multiple dwelling unit building to maintain good picture quality.

Amplification is accomplished by installing amplifiers at pre-designed

intervals along the feeder based upon the number of taps and the length

of coaxial cable within the multiple dwelling unit building.

5. With respect to telephone wiring, in 1990, the Commission

amended the definition of the telephone demarcation point for simple

inside wiring, inter alia, to ``assure that it [would] not be at a

significant distance from where [the] wiring enters the customer's

premises.'' Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making

in CC Docket No. 88-57, 5 FCC Rcd 4686, 4692 (1990) 53 FR 9952 (March

28, 1988) (``Telephone Inside Wiring Report and Order''), recon.

pending. Accordingly, the Commission's rules set the telephone wiring

demarcation point for new and existing single unit installations (where

there is no protector) at a point within 12 inches of where the

telephone wire enters the customer's premises--i.e., up to 12 inches

inside the home. The telephone demarcation point in existing multiple

dwelling unit buildings is determined in accordance with the carrier's

reasonable and nondiscriminatory standard operating practices. For new

multiple dwelling unit buildings, including additions, modifications

and rearrangements of existing wiring, the telephone company may

establish a standard operating practice of placing the demarcation

point at the minimum point of entry (usually the basement of the

building). If the telephone company does not establish such a practice,

the owner of a multiple dwelling unit building may determine the

location of the demarcation point or points. Finally, in contrast with

cable inside wiring, individual telephone lines typically run from the

basement in multiple dwelling unit buildings (where the demarcation

point is usually located) to each individual subscriber's dwelling

unit.

6. In another Commission proceeding involving the setting of the

cable network demarcation point, some alternative multichannel video

programming providers argue that the demarcation point in multiple

dwelling unit buildings should be located ``at that point outside a

subscriber's premises and within the common areas of the multiple

dwelling unit where existing wiring is first readily accessible'' for

increased access and subscriber convenience. On the other hand, some

cable operators argue that these proposals to move the demarcation

point for multiple dwelling units are not precise enough because such a

point could vary from building to building, and that such proposals are

contrary to the plain language of the statute. Cable operators in the

same proceeding argued that moving the cable demarcation point would

severely restrict their ability to compete to provide telephony and

advanced telecommunications services even if a subscriber chose a

competitor's video services. Moreover, the cable operators asserted

that consumers would benefit from additional broadband wires to their

premises, since they could then have the flexibility of receiving

different broadband services from different providers, rather than

simply choosing which single provider's package to receive.

2. Request for Comment. 7. We seek comment on whether we should

establish a common demarcation point for wireline communications

networks--regardless of whether such networks are broadband or

narrowband, or cable or telephony services. Sound reasons for creating

a common demarcation point may exist. For example, in a world in which

cable and telephony services are provided over a single broadband wire,

a common demarcation point could make logical and technical sense. On

the other hand, there may be technical and practical constraints on

setting a common demarcation point. For example, if we set the

demarcation point for multiple dwelling units at the minimum point of

entry (usually in the basement), there may be concerns about the

expense, disruption, and additional space required to install

individual broadband wires and amplifiers to each unit, as well as the

removal of any existing common wiring. Moreover, it also raises the

issue of who the ``customer'' is--the landlord or the tenant--who is

entitled to control the wiring. Altering the cable demarcation point so

that it is farther away from the subscriber's individual unit would

also raise questions about compensation for the wire between the

current cable demarcation point and any amended demarcation point. For

instance, if a subscriber already owns the cable home wiring up to the

current demarcation point, and the Commission moves the demarcation

point to the minimum point of entry, how would the cable operator be

compensated for the additional wiring if the subscriber wished to

purchase it? On the other hand, if the subscriber elected not to

purchase the additional wiring in this scenario, would the cable

operator then have the right to remove that portion of the wiring?

Alternatively, if we require a common demarcation point that is closer

to each subscriber, such as where the existing cable wiring demarcation

point is located, this could subject the currently unregulated

telephone wiring between the minimum point of entry and the customer's

premises to regulation. We seek comment on where, if we establish a

common demarcation point for cable and telephony services, we should

establish such a common demarcation point. We also seek comment on

whether, if we do not create a common demarcation point, we should

continue to establish demarcation points based on the services provided

over facilities (i.e. telephony or cable), or whether we should create

demarcation points based upon the nature of the ultimate facilities

used to deliver the service (i.e. narrowband termination facilities or

broadband termination facilities).

8. We seek comment on whether and how our wiring rules can be

structured to promote competition both in the markets for multichannel

video programming delivery and in the market for telephony and advanced

telecommunications services, and if it will affect our goal of

promoting the development of advanced telecommunications services and

competition for those services. In addition, we seek comment on

whether, and if so, how, the selection of a demarcation point for

either network should depend upon the technical characteristics of the

wiring and the current design considerations for telephone and cable

services.

9. Single Dwelling Units. We seek comment on the effect of changing

the telephone demarcation point to mirror the cable demarcation point,

and on the effect of changing the demarcation point for cable, which

presently does not employ protectors, to mirror the telephone

demarcation point. Finally, we seek comment on the consequences of

permitting broadband service providers to choose where to locate the

network demarcation point, within a range of 12 inches outside the

customer's premises and 12 inches inside the customer's premises.

10. Multiple Dwelling Units. We seek comment on the effect of

changing the telephone network demarcation point to mirror the cable

demarcation point, and on whether the current cable and telephony

demarcation points give reasonable access to competitive providers of

either narrowband or broadband services, or whether it would better

promote competition and otherwise be in the public interest to require

that the demarcation points for broadband and narrowband networks be

placed at a common point or at the point at which the broadband or

[[Page 3659]]

narrowband line becomes dedicated to an individual subscriber's use.

11. We seek additional comment on the competitive effect and

consumer impact of keeping or changing the current cable demarcation

point--not only on the video programming delivery marketplace, but on

the broader telecommunications services market. Because we are

concerned, however, that the current cable demarcation point may be

impeding competition in the video services delivery marketplace, we

intend to resolve this issue expeditiously.

12. We recognize that numerous other factors may affect the proper

location of the cable network's demarcation point, as well as one's

control over cable inside wiring and cable service generally. For

example, single-family row units in condominiums or other residential

settings may be provided cable service via a single, central access

point, which may generate many of the same issues concerning the

network demarcation point as are present in vertical multiple dwelling

unit buildings. We seek comment on other factors related to the

architecture of multiple dwelling unit premises that can affect the

location of the demarcation point. We also seek comment on the

consequences of changing the demarcation point or points, under one of

the approaches described above, in light of the many various

architectural settings in which subscribers may reside. The Commission

also seeks information on any technical constraints on moving either

network's demarcation point.

B. Connections

1. Background. a. Cable Service Wiring. 13. An important technical

consideration in the delivery of cable service and the connections

employed in the technology used to deliver service, is the risk of

cable signal leakage. Cable systems often deliver cable signals over

the same frequencies as many over-the-air licensees, including air

traffic control and police and fire safety communications. The

Commission has established specific restrictions on cable operators'

use of radio frequencies in order to reduce the potential for

interference caused by cable leakage. Another important technical

consideration is the quality of the signal delivered to the

subscriber's terminal. Our rules require a minimum signal level at the

subscriber's terminal to ensure that adequate levels are delivered to

the television set or video cassette recorder and that a good quality

picture is delivered. Signal strength can be lessened by the use of

poor cable, signal splitting for additional television sets, improper

termination and improper attachments of and to customer-owned premises

equipment.

b. Telephone Connection. 14. By contrast, signal leakage

interfering with over-the-air communications has not been a regulatory

concern for telephone service because the transmission of telephony

requires only a fraction of the signal power used to transmit video

programming, and telephone signals are carried over a much narrower, as

well as a different, portion of frequency spectrum than aeronautical

communications. Rather, the overall purpose of our telephone wiring

regulations is to ensure that equipment connected to the telephone

network and the methods used to make those connections do not cause

harm to the telephone network or telephone company employees. Harm, as

defined in our rules, includes: electrical hazards to telephone company

personnel, damage to telephone company equipment, malfunction of

telephone company billing equipment, and degradation of service to

persons other than the user of the subject terminal equipment, his

calling or called party. 47 CFR 68.3. The Commission has determined

that allowing customers access to carrier-installed wiring on their

premises for the purpose of connecting simple inside wiring will not

impair the ability of carriers to provide adequate service to the

public. The Commission has found little inherent risk that a plug/jack

arrangement will be installed incorrectly, or if actually installed

incorrectly, will cause harm to the network.

2. Request for Comment. 15. We expect that broadband common carrier

services will be delivered over the same aeronautical and public safety

frequencies, and at similar levels of power, as are current cable

television signals. Therefore, the same concerns regarding interference

with over-the-air communications that we currently encounter only with

traditional cable service may be implicated. We seek comment on the

best method of extending our signal leakage limits that are currently

applied only to traditional cable service to others who provide service

over broadband facilities. Our cable signal leakage limits are based on

individual leakage levels as well as maximum allowable cumulative

leakage levels and frequency separations from over-the-air users. We

solicit comment on whether these requirements are sufficient or should

be changed to safeguard against interference by any broadband service

provider. We also request comment on whether our cable signal quality

standards should be extended to other broadband video signal providers

or whether, in a future competitive environment, quality standards may

be unnecessary because signal quality will be one of the factors

highlighted by broadband providers in competing for business.

16. Finally, we note that underlying all of the discussion and

proposals outlined in this item is a concern for system integrity,

including any increased risk of signal leakage or decrease in signal

quality. We thus seek comment generally on how any new or revised

regulatory approaches proposed in this NPRM may impact upon these

considerations.

3. Means of Connection. a. Background. 17. The Commission's common

carrier rules define the technical specifications for any jacks that

interface with the telephone network. The rules state that ``any jack

installed by the telephone company at, or constituting, the demarcation

point shall conform to Subpart F of 47 CFR Part 68. Subject to the

requirements of section 68.213 of our rules, connection of wiring and

terminal equipment to the telephone network may be through a jack

conforming to Subpart F or by direct attachment to carrier installed

wiring.*.*.*.'' This standardization ensures that network integrity is

maintained and protects telephone company employees, facilitates the

installation of equipment by non-telephone company employees, and

promotes competition for inside wiring services and telephone customer

premises equipment.

18. Even though the Commission does not have specific rules

governing the type of connectors used by the cable industry, operators

almost exclusively employ ``F-type connectors'' for connection between

coaxial wire and equipment, which, in part, are designed to prevent

signal leakage. These F-type connectors are installed at the ends of

coaxial cable in order to attach the wiring to customer premises

equipment such as televisions, videocassette recorders and set-top

boxes.

b. Request for Comment. 19. We seek comment on whether the

Commission should adopt technical requirements for standard jacks and

connectors for broadband or narrowband networks. If standards are

necessary, how should factors such as electronics and the physical

features of the jack or connector be addressed in designing such

standards? All responses to this and the above inquiries should address

the relative need for standards for protectors, jacks and connectors

that

[[Page 3660]]

will maintain system integrity (i.e., picture and audio quality, signal

reliability, minimal signal leakage), while giving other providers ease

of connection and thus facilitate competition among telecommunications

services providers.

20. We solicit comment on whether the Commission should establish

technical standards for connections to cable networks or broadband

services, where multiple services are delivered over a single wire. We

note that a single standard may facilitate competition among providers

by standardizing and simplifying the type of connection all providers

must use. In the alternative, we seek comment on whether we should

require that all connections to either the telephone network or cable

systems use only the jacks meeting Commission standards or their

technical equivalent.

C. Regulation of Simple and Complex, and Residential and Non-

Residential Wiring

1. Background. a. Telephone Provisions: Simple vs. Complex Wiring.

21. The degree to which the Commission regulates telephone inside

wiring depends largely on whether the subscriber requires simple wiring

or complex wiring to receive service. Simple inside wiring includes all

one and two line telephone wiring on the customer's side of the

demarcation point, and is often called ``non-system premise wiring'' or

``customer premise wiring.'' Complex wiring, also called ``intrasystem

wiring,'' includes all wiring of three or more twisted pairs and its

associated components (e.g., connecting blocks, terminal boxes,

conduit) located on the customer's side of the demarcation point that

connects telephones, facsimile machines, modems, and other devices to

each other or to the common equipment of a private branch exchange

(``PBX'') or key system, when this wiring is inside a building or

between a customer's buildings located on the same or contiguous

property not separated by public property.

22. Most single dwelling units require only simple wiring, while

multiple dwelling units and commercial settings require complex

intrasystem wiring. We have not allowed customers to connect to the

public telephone network with complex wiring other than through a

telephone company-provided jack. In the interstate jurisdiction, we

have deregulated the installation and maintenance of both simple and

complex inside wire. In the intrastate jurisdiction, however, we have

allowed the states to regulate the prices, terms and conditions on

which simple inside wire services are offered to the public.

b. Cable Service Provisions. 23. As described above, our cable

inside wiring rules address three primary areas: (1) technical

standards; (2) the disposition of wiring after termination of service;

and (3) rates for the wiring installation and maintenance. First, the

Commission's technical standards apply only to wiring that a cable

operator installs and maintains. This caveat does not affect the

Commission's standards concerning signal leakage, however, because

these requirements must be met regardless of who provides the final

service link to the individual subscriber or who actually receives

payment from subscribers for cable service.

24. Second, rules adopted pursuant to Section 16(d) of the 1992

Cable Act governing the disposition of wiring upon termination of

service apply only to cable wiring installed by cable operators in

residential dwelling units. Both the House and Senate Reports and the

1992 Cable Act clearly identify Section 16(d) as applying to home

wiring--i.e., wiring ``inside the home.'' Third, rates for equipment

used to receive residential cable service, including inside wiring, are

regulated by the local franchising authority pursuant to rules the

Commission has promulgated under the 1992 Cable Act.

2. Request for Comment. 25. We anticipate that telecommunications

service providers in the future will provide both telephony and video

programming services, as well as other services. These services may be

delivered over multiple wires or over a single broadband wire. We

believe that separate regulatory regimes for telephone and cable inside

wiring may impede the delivery and possibly development, of broadband

and other services to the public because the differing schemes may

cause needless confusion for providers and consumers. Therefore, we

seek comment on whether the Commission can and should harmonize the

definitions within the common carrier and cable rules with regard to

simple versus complex wiring; and residential versus non-residential

wiring.

26. We also seek comment on whether the complex telephone wiring

configurations and cable inside wiring configurations employed in

multiple dwelling unit buildings or non-residential settings,

respectively, are similar, and if so, whether this similarity means

that complex telephone wiring and similarly employed cable inside

wiring should be subject to similar rules. Would our telephone wiring

rules, cable wiring rules, or some combination of both, be most

appropriate? We seek comment on the optimal regulatory regime for

wiring used to deliver both telephony and video programming as well as

other services, i.e., the complex versus simple dichotomy, our cable

wiring regulations, or some other approach. For example, would it be

sensible to explore treating different types of cable inside wiring

differently based on their technical characteristics, similar to the

complex versus simple distinction in the regulation of telephone

wiring? In addition, we seek comment on regulating wiring based on some

other approach, such as the type of wiring used (i.e., twisted copper

pair, coaxial or fiber optic). In this vein, would it be appropriate to

establish individual simple and complex wiring definitions for each

type of wiring? Finally, we seek comment on how any changes in our

rules concerning the above aspects of wiring may affect system

integrity and reliability.

27. We seek comment on how any changes in our rules concerning

these aspects of wiring may affect signal leakage and signal quality.

We also seek comment on how any of the above changes to our rules may

affect competition in the telephone and cable markets.

D. Customer Access to Wiring

1. Cable Wiring Provisions. 28. Section 16(d) of the 1992 Cable Act

requires the Commission to ``prescribe rules concerning the

disposition, after a subscriber to a cable system terminates service,

of any cable installed by the cable operator within the premises of

such subscriber.'' The Commission's regulations implementing Section

16(d) provide that, when a customer voluntarily terminates cable

service, the cable operator may not remove the cable home wiring unless

it has first given that subscriber the opportunity to acquire the

wiring at its per-foot replacement cost and the subscriber declines. If

the subscriber declines to purchase the wiring, the operator must

remove the wiring within 30 days (now seven business days) or make no

subsequent attempt to remove it or restrict its use. This rule does not

apply where the subscriber already owns the home wiring. The current

cable home wiring rules do not require cable operators to permit

subscribers to provide and install their own cable home wiring, or to

move or rearrange operator-owned cable home wiring.

2. Telephone Provisions. 29. The Commission has deregulated the

installation and maintenance of both complex and simple telephone

inside

[[Page 3661]]

wire. As explained above, we first acted with regard to the

installation of complex wiring, which is ``new intrasystem wiring

installed with new CPE systems.'' Since we had deregulated the

installation of new CPE systems in Computer II, Amendment of Section

64.702 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, Final Decision, 77

FCC2d 384, 45 FR 31319 (May 13, 1980) (``Computer II''), modified on

reconsideration, 84 FCC2d 50 (1980), further modified on

reconsideration, 88 FCC2d 512 (1981) it was inconsistent to have

complex wiring installed under tariff. Therefore, to foster competition

in complex wiring installation, we deregulated the installation of

complex wiring in the same way and on the same basis as we had

deregulated CPE in Computer II. We subsequently deregulated the

installation of simple inside wiring and maintenance of all inside

wiring, effective January 1, 1987. Through these actions, we intended

to make the cost-causative customer bear the costs of connecting CPE,

including inside wiring, to the telephone network and, thus, to produce

immediate cost savings that would be passed on to ratepayers.

30. To complete the deregulation of inside wire, the Commission

prohibited telephone companies from imposing restrictions on inside

wire that would prevent customers from removing, replacing, rearranging

or maintaining inside wire using sources of their own choosing. In

addition, we precluded the telephone companies from requiring customers

to purchase or to pay a charge for using inside wire that had been

previously installed or maintained under tariff.

3. Request for Comment. 31. We tentatively conclude that there is

no reason to change our rules giving consumers the right to access

their narrowband wiring inside the demarcation point, whether that

wiring is used to provide voice, video or data services. We seek

comment on this tentative conclusion. We also seek comment on whether

the Commission should establish rules that give consumers the right to

provide and to install their own broadband inside wiring and to access

broadband wiring (for purposes of, for example, installing additional

outlets, performing maintenance or reconfiguring existing wiring) on

their premises which has been installed and is owned by the broadband

service provider. In particular, we seek comment on whether consumers

should have such a right if: (a) the broadband wire carries both cable

and common carrier services (``joint use''); or (b) the broadband wire

carries cable services only.

32. Access to broadband inside wiring prior to termination of

service would allow consumers to select who will install and maintain

their broadband wire (e.g., someone other than the cable operator, such

as a commercial contractor, or the consumer himself or herself). The

resulting competition in the wiring marketplace might also reduce the

amount of maintenance fees and service charges a subscriber pays to the

broadband service provider.

33. In this context, we ask whether and how broadening the cable

rules to establish the subscribers' right to provide and to install

their own cable inside wiring and to access cable operator-owned inside

wiring would (a) promote consumer choice; (b) foster competition among

multichannel video programming service providers, thus lowering prices

and encouraging technological innovation; and (c) facilitate the

provision of more than one type of telecommunications service (e.g.,

telephone and video) by different types of companies. We also request

comment generally on how to protect against signal leakage and to

maintain the signal quality delivered over the coaxial cable if

subscribers are given pretermination access to broadband cable inside

wiring.

34. We seek comment on whether the Commission has authority under

the Communications Act to promulgate cable inside wiring rules

requiring pretermination access, both when the wiring is used jointly

by cable and common carrier services and when the wiring is used solely

for cable services. In particular, we ask whether, in the joint use

context, the inside wiring used to transmit interstate

telecommunications services is so inseparable from the wiring used to

transmit the cable services that consumers should have the right to

access the wiring under the Commission's current telephone rules. We

note that, while the telephone rules may provide a useful model for

broadband wiring, cable operators may not be regulated as common

carriers ``by reason of providing any cable service.'' We believe,

however, that simply applying rules to cable that are the same as, or

similar to, the telephone inside wiring rules is not tantamount to

treating cable operators as common carriers. We nevertheless request

comment on this interpretation of the statute. We also ask commenters

to address the issue of whether permitting pretermination access would

constitute an impermissible ``taking'' of property without just

compensation, in violation of cable operators' Fifth Amendment rights.

35. We also ask whether the best way to ensure that subscribers are

permitted to own and to access cable inside wiring, whether by buying

it or installing it prior to termination of service, might be to

deregulate cable inside wiring rates, much the same as telephone inside

wiring has been deregulated. We ask whether the introduction of

competition in the markets for cable inside wiring would force cable

operators to permit pretermination access where there is subscriber

demand. We seek comment on whether we have the statutory authority to

deregulate cable home wiring rates. We direct the parties to Section

16(d) of the 1992 Cable Act and Section 623(b) of the Communications

Act, as amended, and note that Congress specifically expressed a

``[p]reference for competition'' over regulation in setting rates for

cable services. In addition, we seek comment on whether and on what

basis the Commission should establish a transition period, during which

rates would remain regulated, while the market for cable home wiring

becomes competitive. We also ask for comment on whether, if the

Commission is statutorily required to regulate cable inside wiring

rates, we should provide incentives to cable operators to permit

pretermination access, for example, by providing that, if an operator

allows subscribers to access the home wiring prior to termination of

service, or sells the wiring to the subscriber (upon installation or

any time thereafter), the operator may then charge the subscriber

whatever rate it wishes to reconfigure or perform maintenance on the

wiring.

36. In order to promote the efficient transfer of service, we thus

seek comment on establishing a requirement that subscribers own their

inside wiring upon installation of cable service, on a going-forward

basis. We note that our current rules, as Title VI requires, already

permit cable operators to recover the costs of inside wiring

installation. We solicit comment on whether we should require cable

operators to sell the wiring upon installation of cable service. We

seek comment on the best way to achieve this. For example, should we

require cable operators to include the cost of the wiring as well as

the cost of labor to install the wiring in the cost of installation of

cable service? We seek comment on whether it is necessary for the

Commission to detail how these costs are to be recovered, e.g., in a

one-time initial payment, or on a monthly basis for some maximum number

of

[[Page 3662]]

months. Under the latter approach, we would intend for full ownership

of the wiring to be vested in the subscriber once the subscriber pays

any portion of the costs associated with the wiring. We understand that

cable operators would need time to implement this approach; therefore,

we seek comment on requiring cable operators to adopt this approach as

of some date certain in the future, e.g., six, 12 or 18 months

following adoption of the requirement.

37. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether the Commission can

and should create a presumption that the subscriber owns his or her

cable inside wiring. As we noted in the Cable Wiring Order, the

subscriber often already owns the home wiring, such as where the

subscriber was charged for the wiring upon installation, or, at least

in the case of single family dwellings, where the applicable state or

local law treats the wire as a ``fixture,'' or the previous occupant

already owned the home wiring, either by purchasing the wiring upon

voluntary termination of service or because the operator failed to

remove it within the time allowable under our rules. We seek comment on

whether this presumption could be rebutted by the cable operator or be

an irrebuttable presumption. If rebuttable, we seek comment on what

kind of showing cable operators would have to make to overcome a

presumption that the subscriber owns his or her home wiring, what type

of records operators would be required to keep, any constitutional or

statutory impediments to such a presumption, and when such a process

would occur. We also seek comment on our concern that, at least for

existing wiring, operators may possess inadequate records to

demonstrate ownership. If irrebuttable, we seek comment on how such a

relinquishment of ownership rights could be structured consistent with

constitutional and statutory requirements, and what deadlines should be

imposed in order to permit cable operators to obtain full compensation

for their inside wiring costs.

4. Compensation for Wiring.--a. Background. 38. The Commission's

rules compensate cable operators for their costs of installing the

subscriber's cable home wiring. With respect to telephone wiring, as

previously noted, the Commission deregulated the installation of simple

inside wiring and the maintenance of all inside wiring, effective

January 1, 1987. We then precluded carriers from imposing restrictions

upon the removal, replacement, rearrangement or maintenance of inside

wiring.

39. Currently, cable operators must elect a uniform installation

charge that is based upon either the product of the hourly service

charge and the person hours of the visit, or the product of the hourly

service charge and the average hours spent per installation visit.

Further, the rules prescribe a per-foot replacement cost upon

termination of service. We stated in the Cable Wiring Order that the

per-foot charge should be based on the replacement cost of coaxial

cable in the community, and gave as an example for which the cost was

approximately six cents per foot.

b. Request for Comment. 40. We seek comment on whether our current

rules for compensation of broadband cable should change if, for

example, we move the demarcation point for cable systems to the minimum

point of entry in multiple dwelling unit buildings or some other point,

including some point farther than 12 inches from the subscriber's

premises. We also seek comment on providing compensation to telephone

companies for the cost of an additional segment of what is now a

customer's narrowband telephone loop, if it is determined that the

demarcation point for the telephone network will be placed 12 inches

outside the customer's premises, or at some point inside of the minimum

point of entry.

E. Dual Regulation

1. Background. 41. As described above, the Commission has

established rules to govern the technical performance of cable systems,

the disposition of wiring upon termination of service, and subscriber

rates for the installation, maintenance and sale of equipment necessary

to receive cable service generally, including inside wiring. The local

franchising authority generally is the first line of enforcement of all

such rules, while the Commission will, either informally or by rule,

resolve disputes that may arise between a cable operator and the local

franchising authority.

42. Because most local telephone exchange facilities are used

jointly to provide interstate and intrastate telephone services, they

are regulated by both federal and state regulatory authorities. The

extent of dual regulation depends generally on whether the Commission

has preempted state authority to regulate exclusively a particular

aspect of telephone service rates.

43. With respect to simple wiring services, however, we have

maintained certain federal standards with which state regulations must

comply. For example, if a state chooses to regulate the rates under

which telephone companies provide simple inside wiring, the state

regulations must require the telephone companies to unbundle the inside

wiring charges from the charges for basic transmission services.

Moreover, a state may not establish rules that will impede the

competitive provision of telephone inside wiring. In addition, any

state regulations governing the terms or conditions under which inside

wire services are provided must be consistent with the technical

standards set forth in Part 68 of our rules.

44. In addition, the Commission has instituted a system to monitor

state regulatory programs for inside wire to assess their impact on our

goal of achieving full competition in the market for inside wire

services. We require a telephone company with annual operating revenues

of $100 million or more to file with the Commission a copy of any state

or local statute, rule, order, or other document that regulates, or

proposes to regulate, the price or prices the telephone companies

charge for inside wire services.

2. Request for Comment. 45. We first solicit comment on whether it

may be necessary to harmonize these respective disparate systems of

regulation as the similarity increases between the technology employed

to deliver telephony and video programming. For example, as stated

previously, it is possible that in the future both telephony and video

programming will be delivered over a single wire; thus, an issue may

arise over which dual system regulation should govern, i.e, Commission-

local franchising authority (cable service) or Commission-state public

utility commission (telephone service). We seek comment on whether the

Commission has legal authority to change or harmonize these dual

systems of regulation to accommodate the situation where broadband or

multiple services are provided over a single wire or multiple wires,

and how this could be accomplished. Similarly, if we were to adopt a

common demarcation point for both cable and telephone networks,

confusion also might arise over which relationship between local and

federal authorities should govern. Therefore, we also seek comment

generally on any conflicts that may arise from unifying these disparate

systems of dual regulation between cable and telephone service for

inside wiring, in light of the definition of the network or system

demarcation points as well as the other standard technical requirements

for the two services.

46. We also ask commenters to discuss the role of non-federal

regulation in setting the prices, terms

[[Page 3663]]

and conditions for telecommunications services inside wiring.

Currently, many local regulators regulate cable wiring. We seek comment

on whether the non-federal regulation of telephone wiring should be

altered if the delivery systems for telephony and video programming

become more similar. With respect to federal involvement, difficulties

also may arise in determining the proper level of our involvement in

the oversight of wiring as telephone and video programming technologies

advance. In this context, we seek comment on whether we should expand

or decrease our monitoring of charges for inside wiring used to provide

video service, or increase or decrease our oversight of telephone

inside wiring.

F. Service Provider Access to Private Property

1. Background. 47. We also wish to examine the right of various

service providers to obtain access to private property, such as

multiple dwelling unit buildings, private housing developments, and

office buildings. If, in the interest of competitive parity, we

ultimately were to adopt a uniform demarcation point for the networks

of all companies providing similar services, that goal may not be

achieved if all providers do not have equal access to the customer's

wiring at the demarcation point.

48. Telephone companies traditionally have gained access to private

property through private easements and contracts with the property

owners. As common carriers, they also have the use of public right-of-

ways and can exercise the power of eminent domain. Thus, when they seek

to provide telephone service, there has been little objection to their

right to access private property.

49. Cable operators' right to gain access to private property has

been less clear. Currently, approximately thirteen states have passed

some form of cable mandatory access statute, including Connecticut,

Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New

Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.

2. Request for Comment. 50. Parity of access rights to private

property may be a necessary predicate for any attempt to achieve parity

in the rules governing cable and telephone network inside wiring,

because without access to the premises, the inside wiring rules and

proposals discussed in this NPRM will not even be implicated. An

inequality in access can unfairly benefit one provider over another. In

addition, we have received conflicting information about the ability of

alternative service providers to obtain the permission of multiple

dwelling unit building owners: (a) to enter the building at all; (b) to

run a common feeder line up a stairwell, for example, to a security

closet or lockbox; and (c) to run individual wiring down hallways from

the lockbox to individual units. We seek comment on the legal and

practical impediments faced by telecommunications service providers in

gaining access to subscribers. For instance, as discussed above, moving

the cable demarcation point farther away from the subscriber, such as

back to the lockbox, could alleviate much of the access problem if

building owners primarily objected to running additional wiring down

the hallways; on the other hand, moving the demarcation point may have

little impact if building owners have been denying alternative

providers access to the property altogether.

51. We seek comment on the above discussion and several other

specific issues related to provider access. First, we seek comment on

the current status of the law regarding access to private property by

cable operators and telephone companies. For instance, what type(s) of

access do state statutes granting mandatory access for cable operators

provide? Who qualifies for such mandatory access (e.g., only franchised

cable operators)? Have cable operators been successful in obtaining

access to private property under any other statutory or common law

theories? Similarly, what type(s) of access to private property do the

states grant to telephone companies? Is such access related to the type

of service provided or to the identity of the company? Do the statutes

permit telephone companies to obtain access to private residences, such

as multiple dwelling units, or simply to run their lines across private

property? In other words, can an individual resident in a multiple

dwelling unit obtain telephone service over the property owner's

objection?

52. We also seek comment on whether and how the rules governing

access to customers' premises should be harmonized in a world in which

the cable operator, the telephone company and possibly others may be

offering telephony, video and other services over a single wire. Can

and should cable operators that offer telephony be permitted to use the

telephone companies' easements to obtain access to private property?

Can and should cable operators or telephone companies, if they have an

easement to provide telephony, also be permitted to provide video or

other services using the same easement? Should it make a difference

whether the services are provided over one wire or two? We seek comment

on whether allowing a company that possesses an easement for one

service to rely on that easement in providing another service would

constitute an impermissible ``taking'' without just compensation, in

contravention of the property owner's Fifth Amendment rights.

53. Finally, we request comment on whether the Commission can and

should attempt to create access parity among service providers, and

what our rules should say regarding the terms of such access. We also

seek comment on any statutory or constitutional impediments to this

goal. In particular, we ask commenters to address the concern that any

right of access to private property may constitute an impermissible

``taking'' in violation of the property owner's Fifth Amendment rights.

We realize that a number of these potential service providers are not

common carriers and their right to access is not well established in

state or federal law. We seek comment on the potential constraints this

lack of common carrier status will have on the rules we prescribe.

G. Customer Premises Equipment

1. Background. 54. Telephone-related customer premises equipment

(CPE) constitutes all telephone equipment located on the customer's

side of the demarcation point, including private branch exchanges

(PBXs), key systems, modems, and telephone handsets. In the Computer II

Final Decision, we concluded that Title II regulation of CPE was no

longer warranted. We found that deregulation ``fosters a regulatory

scheme which separates the provision of regulated common carrier

services from competitive activities that are independent of, but

related to, the underlying utility service.'' Earlier decisions removed

tariff provisions that restricted customers' rights to attach non-

carrier provided CPE to the telephone network. Those earlier efforts

culminated in a registration program that allows consumers to connect

their own equipment to the network if the equipment conforms to certain

technical standards and is properly registered with the Commission

under Part 68 of our rules. These decisions confirmed the existence of

broad consumer right under Sections 201(b) and 202(a) of the Act.

55. In Computer II, we were also concerned that carriers' practices

of bundling CPE charges with charges for basic services could undermine

our efforts to ensure that regulated service rates accurately reflected

the costs of providing the associated service. Given

[[Page 3664]]

the variety of CPE products and suppliers, we were confident that our

unbundling and detariffing of CPE would not adversely affect consumers.

56. Cable-related CPE, regulated under Part 15 of the Commissions

rules for emission and interference, generally includes equipment

located on the customer's side of the demarcation point, such as

television receivers (``TVs''), video cassette recorders (``VCRs''),

remote control units, and set-top converter descramblers (``set-top

boxes''). We note that most of the current cable-related CPE mentioned,

such as TVs and VCRs, were designed and can function without connection

to cable systems, whereas practically all telephone-related equipment

is specifically designed to be connected to telephone networks. As

such, a number of issues may exist regarding the connection of

customer-owned CPE to cable system equipment, including loss of CPE

features and requiring a set-top box to receive cable service. While

set-top boxes are generally provided by the cable operator, TVs and

VCRs are generally provided by the subscriber. In addition, we

anticipate that future CPE used by cable and telephone subscribers may

include computers, component decoders and tuning devices, and

facilities used for interactive services. Often, cable operators

protect their extended basic and premium services with proprietary

scrambling techniques. In these cases, the subscriber must obtain the

descrambler converters from the cable operator. Our current cable

regulations do not specifically address the rights of cable subscribers

to connect CPE to cable operators' facilities. Therefore, unlike

equipment used to receive common carrier telephone service, there is

some ambiguity as to whether cable operators may prohibit or limit

subscribers' ability to connect CPE to operators' facilities for

services other than cable service.

57. The 1992 Cable Act directed the Commission to establish

standards that relied upon actual cost to set the rates charged to

lease equipment used by subscribers to receive basic cable service.

Only some cable-related CPE are subject to this statutory provision,

including set-top boxes, remote control units, connections for

additional outlets, and inside wiring. We note that the 1992 Cable Act

also directed the Commission to ensure compatibility between consumer

equipment and cable systems, consistent with the need to prevent theft

of cable service, so that cable subscribers will be able to enjoy the

full benefits of both the programming available on cable systems and

the functions available on their television receivers and VCRs.

58. What is more, and as stated previously, we anticipate that the

technologies used to deliver and receive cable and telephone service

may become more similar. For example, future video programming and

telephony may not only be delivered over a single broadband wire, but

future subscribers may receive both services using a single piece of

equipment, such as a computer modem or a ``videophone.'' It is also

possible that the subscriber may only need one piece of customer

premises equipment to interact with both services, such as an enhanced

set-top box or stand-alone interface unit. In addition, multi-use

devices may be developed that allow subscribers to receive video, data

and voice services, akin to the present functions of a telephone modem

used to reach computer networks. In such cases, the disparate

regulatory schemes for cable-related CPE and telephone-related

equipment could cause confusion for service providers as well as

subscribers and regulators. For example, service providers may be

uncertain whether rates for such equipment are subject to regulation.

Similarly, subscribers may be uncertain of their rights to connect CPE

to the network(s) over which they receive service.

2. Request for Comment. 59. Interconnection. Since the Commission

deregulated telephone CPE, the Commission's goals of promoting

marketplace entry by communications equipment vendors, increasing

competition among these vendors, and producing cost savings for both

consumers and common carriers have largely been fulfilled. We believe

that exploring and possibly establishing the rights of consumers to

provide and connect unregulated CPE to cable operator facilities can

similarly benefit cable subscribers. We also believe that creating a

record on these and other related issues will enable the Commission to

establish simple and pro-competitive rules setting forth the rights and

responsibilities of both service providers and subscribers with respect

to CPE.

60. We therefore seek comment on the costs and benefits of

harmonizing or revising our rules to accommodate better the possible

convergence of technologies used to receive and to interact with

network-delivered video programming and telephony. We seek comment on

whether to allow customers to use and connect their cable-related CPE,

such as set-top boxes, to cable facilities while allowing cable

operators to protect their legitimate security interests and to provide

new and innovative services without inhibiting the use of existing

customer CPE. We recognize that new and innovative services often

require proprietary equipment which may not be compatible with existing

CPE. We seek comment on the technical and economic impediments to

requiring new services to be compatible with existing CPE. We also

solicit comment on whether we should establish a common regulatory

scheme to govern both cable and telephone network CPE.

61. We also understand that the technology of future CPE may take a

variety of forms (e.g., component decoders, computer modems). We note

that technologies to deliver voice and video service on an integrated

basis continue to evolve. We seek comment on whether we should tailor

our rules to accommodate different types of CPE technologies and

functions. For example, perhaps there should be a different set of

rules for cable-related equipment that is designed to both transmit and

receive, than for equipment that is designed only to receive. We

tentatively conclude that consumers should be able to connect cable-

related equipment, as well as purchase this equipment, and seek comment

on how the Commission may best achieve this goal. We note that in the

1992 Cable Act, Congress recognized that there are a number of

compatibility problems between cable service and consumer electronics

equipment. Congress was particularly concerned about the inability of

cable subscribers to use the special features and functions of their TV

sets and VCRs when receiving cable signals which are most often

precluded by the use of a cable supplied set-top box. These features

include picture-in-picture, timed recordings and the ability to view

one channel while recording another. Presently, the Commission is

awaiting finalization of a standard for a Decoder Interface connector.

This standard is being developed by the Cable-Consumer Electronics

Compatibility Advisory Group in conjunction with the Joint Engineering

Committee of the Electronics Industry Association and NCTA. We believe

that special rules must govern subscribers' access to and connection of

CPE with access control functions that are consistent with these

efforts. In this context, we seek comment on how best to protect

against theft of cable service or other damage to cable operators'

facilities if we were to change our rules to accommodate the possible

convergence of technology used to deliver and receive cable and

[[Page 3665]]

telephone service. We also note that the Commission has taken steps to

ensure enhanced compatibility between consumer electronics equipment

and cable operators' facilities. See In the Matter of Implementation of

Section 17 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition

Act of 1992: Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer

Electronics Equipment, ET Docket 93-7, 9 FCC Rcd 1981 (1994), 58 FR

7205 (Feb. 2, 1993). The regulations adopted in the equipment

compatibility proceeding will allow consumers to utilize customer

premises equipment offered by a variety of suppliers, including the

cable operator, in a competitive market.

62. We are not proposing to change our Computer II framework for

equipment connected to narrowband facilities, or for equipment used in

conjunction with Title II services but not Title VI services. We

tentatively conclude that CPE used in conjunction with Title VI

services provided over narrowband facilities should also be governed by

Computer II, and seek comment on this tentative conclusion, including

any security concerns that are raised by such a conclusion.

63. We note that Part 68 of the Commission's rules establishes

standards for telephone-related CPE and an equipment registration

program that are designed to ensure the reliability of telephone

networks. Network reliability and safety must be maintained as entities

other than traditional telephone companies begin to offer both voice

and video services that use or interconnect with the public switched

network. We thus seek comment on whether the Commission should enlarge

the current registration program to cover cable-related CPE that use or

interconnect with the public switched network, if such interconnection

is to occur. We further seek comment on whether an equipment

registration program similar to the existing Part 68 program should be

established for manufacturers of equipment used with future services,

both broadband and narrowband, to ensure the integrity and reliability

of these networks. Finally, we seek comment on how such a program

should be structured to define the rights of both the service providers

and the network subscribers, while ensuring the development and

maintenance of a competitive CPE market. Such policies might include

adoption of standards, for example, such as the Commission has adopted

for telephone equipment in Part 68 of its rules.

64. Equipment Rates. We believe that improving cable subscribers'

rights to acquire and provide their own cable-related CPE would benefit

subscribers. Such rules would give subscribers the choice of

purchasing, installing or maintaining CPE themselves, or having a

vendor other than the cable operator do so. This should promote

marketplace entry by communications equipment vendors and facilitate

competition among these vendors, as we have seen in the telephone

context. A competitive marketplace should lead to the development of

innovative types of CPE, improved performance of existing and new CPE,

and improved maintenance of CPE.

65. As previously stated with respect to equipment rates, the 1992

Cable Act directed the Commission to establish a rate-setting

methodology for equipment used to receive basic cable service,

including set-top boxes, remote control units, wiring, and additional

cable outlets. In response, the Commission's regulations link maximum

permitted rates for regulated equipment to operators' actual costs of

providing the equipment. We note, however, that Congress exhibited a

clear preference for competition over regulation in the setting of

rates for cable service and equipment.\1\ We believe that deregulating

rates for currently regulated CPE would be in the public interest if

the marketplace for CPE becomes competitive, and seek comment on this

tentative conclusion. We wish to make clear that we are not proposing

to re-regulate currently deregulated telephone CPE rates. We also seek

comment on whether the Commission has authority to deregulate cable CPE

rates under the Communications Act, and specifically whether the

Commission possesses such authority under Sections 623(b), 632(b),

4(i), and 1. We further seek comment on whether specifically

deregulating rates for currently regulated CPE would be inconsistent

with the 1992 Cable Act, given that market forces in the resulting

marketplace should determine rates. Finally, we seek comment on whether

it would be necessary to establish a transition period prior to the

deregulation of currently regulated CPE rates, until a competitive

marketplace for CPE exists.

\1\ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 543(a)(2).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

66. Pursuant to Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the

Commission has prepared the following initial regulatory flexibility

analysis (``IRFA'') of the expected impact of these proposed policies

and rules on small entities. Written public comments are requested on

the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same

filing deadlines as comments on the rest of the NPRM, but they must

have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to

the IRFA. The Secretary shall cause a copy of the NPRM, including the

IRFA, to be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration in accordance with Section 603(a) of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C.

Sec. 601 et seq. (1981).

67. The Commission issues this NPRM to consider changes in our

telephone and cable inside wiring rules and policies in light of

today's evolving and converging telecommunications marketplace.

68. Objectives. To explore the development of new cable and

telephony service rules in the following areas in light of converging

technology: demarcation point, means of connection, simple and complex

residential and non-residential wiring, installation, maintenance,

access and ownership of inside wiring, compensation, dual regulation

and service provider access.

69. Legal Basis. Action as proposed for this rulemaking is

contained in Section 1, 4(i), 201-205, 214-215, 220, 623, and 632 of

the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 151,

154(i), 201-205, 214-215, 220, 543 and 552.

70. Description, Potential Impact and Number of Small Entities

Affected. The proposals, if adopted, will not have a significant effect

on a substantial number of small entities.

71. Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements.

None.

72. Federal Rules which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict with these

Rules. None.

73. Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing Impact on Small

Entities and Consistent with Stated Objectives. None.

IV. Procedural Provisions

74. Ex parte Rules--Non-Restricted Proceeding. This is a non-

restricted notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte

presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period,

provided that they are disclosed as provided in Commission's rules. See

generally 47 CFR Secs. 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).

75. To file formally in this proceeding, you must file an original

plus four copies of all comments, reply comments, and supporting

comments. If you want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of

your comments and

[[Page 3666]]

reply comments, you must file an original plus nine copies. Comments

are due on March 18, 1996, and reply comments are due on April 17,

1996. You should send comments and reply comments to Office of the

Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available

for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC

Reference Center, Room 239, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M

Street N.W., Washington D.C. 20554.

V. Ordering Clauses

76. It is ordered that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 201-205, 214-

215, 220, 623, and 632 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,

47 U.S.C. Secs. 151, 154(i), 201-205, 214-215, 220, 543 and 552, NOTICE

IS HEREBY GIVEN of proposed amendments to Part 76, in accordance with

the proposals, discussions, and statement of issues in this Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, and that COMMENT IS SOUGHT regarding such

proposals, discussion, and statement of issues.

77. It is further ordered that the Secretary shall send a copy of

this NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of

the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5

U.S.C. Secs. 601 et seq. (1981).

78. It is further ordered that the Petition for Rulemaking filed by

the Media Access Project, et al., to the extent it concerns making

cable home wiring rules the same as those governing telephone inside

wiring, is Hereby granted.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76

Cable television.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96-2169 Filed 1-31-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P