[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 22 (Thursday, February 1, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3657-3666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-2169]



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


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