WPC 2 BP Courier 10cpi3|wO le)CG Times Bold (Scalable)CG Times Italic (Scalable)CG Times (Scalable)T1tional)HPLAIIAD.PRSx  @HQ#0^X@26<EL Z-3|wN c-#XR  P7jQ[AXP#HP LaserJet IIISi LPT1tional)HPLAIIAD.PRSXj\  P6G;HQ#0^XP|D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdCG Times (Scalable)CG Times Bold (Scalable).PRSXj\  P6G;\I xXP2Xhvp)kC8wC;,[AXw P7XPD7zC;,ZXz_ p^7X&6uC;,-/Xu&_ x$&7XXd4wC;,HXw*0 xM7XpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDddddddDocument 2Document 2/ Document 7Document 70 Right Par 1Right Par 11` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 2Right Par 22` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#24G3ln@4@5B6EDocument 3Document 33 Right Par 3Right Par 34` hp x (#X` P hp x (#X` P hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 4Right Par 45` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 5Right Par 56` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2O7fG8I9K:(MRight Par 6Right Par 67` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 7Right Par 78` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 8Right Par 89` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Document 1Document 1:` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#2:U;$P<$>R=lbT>lTTechnical 5Technical 5;` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 6Technical 6<` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 2Technical 2= Technical 3Technical 3> 2D\?$lU@lWA$WB$ ZTechnical 4Technical 4?` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 1Technical 1@ Technical 7Technical 7A` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 8Technical 8B` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2dCv\D^E`Fbtoc 1toc 1C` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#toc 2toc 2D` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3E` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4F` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#2kG eH>gIv\iJitoc 5toc 5G` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#toc 6toc 6H` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7I toc 8toc 8J` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#2tK"lL@nM^pN|rtoc 9toc 9K` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#index 1index 1L` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2M` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toatoaN` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#2kxOvtPlBuQruK vcaptioncaptionO _Equation Caption_Equation CaptionP endnote referenceendnote referenceQ "i~'^#)0<-supra, at 1.q NYNEX asserts, among other  Xy-things, that consumers should be able to control the cable home wiring upon installation so that they can obtain additional services from other multichannel video programming service  XK-providers through simultaneous use of the wire's spare capacity.E K X#-ԍxNYNEX Petition at 6.E The United States"Ka 0*((:"  X-Telephone Association ("USTA") and the Bell Atlantic telephone companies:  Xy-ԍxAs of the date of their filing in this proceeding, the Bell Atlantic telephone companies were The Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, the four Chesapeake and Potomac telephone companies, The Diamond State Telephone Company and New Jersey Bell Telephone Company.: ("Bell  X-Atlantic") support NYNEX's proposal.4 X-ԍxUSTA Supporting Statement at 34; USTA Reply Comments at 15; Bell Atlantic  X-Reply at 23; see also GTE Supporting Comments at 2.  X-  X-x6.` ` On the other hand, the National Cable Television Association, Inc. ("NCTA"), states that the Commission's current rules fully effectuate the statutory language and the  X-underlying purposes of the 1992 Cable Act.F X-ԍxNCTA Opposition at 1.F NCTA and Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. ("Time Warner"), claim that the Commission lacks the authority under the 1992 Cable Act to mandate that operators convey ownership to subscribers at the time of  XH-installation.]H  Xz-ԍxId. at 10; Time Warner Response at 11.]  X -x7.` ` Time Warner also contends that any "forced abandonment" of a cable operator's ownership interest in home wiring, whether before or after termination of service,  X -constitutes an impermissible "taking" of property without just compensation.O 4  X-ԍxTime Warner Response at 1112.O Specifically, Time Warner asserts that the Commission's current rules violate the takings clause by providing that if a cable operator fails to remove its home wiring within 30 days following termination of service, the operator is prohibited from subsequently attempting to remove the  X-wiring or restrict its use.:  X&-ԍxId.:  Wb<x` ` 3. Discussion  XK-  X4-x8.` ` The Commission's current cable home wiring rules implement the specific directive of Section 16(d) of the 1992 Cable Act, i.e., to establish rules governing the  X-disposition of cable home wiring upon termination of cable service. Our current rules promote the goals of Section 16(d), which are to protect customers from unnecessary disruption and expense caused by the removal of home wiring and to allow subscribers to use"0*(("  X-the wiring for an alternative multichannel video programming delivery system.- Xy-ԍxSee House Report at 118; S. Rep. No. 92, 102d Cong., 1st Sess., at 23 (1991) ("Senate  Xd-Report"); see also Cable Wiring Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 1435; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket No. 92260, 7 FCC Rcd 7349.- On reconsideration, we are not persuaded, based on the record in this proceeding at this time, to  X-expand our cable home wiring rules under Section 16(d) of the 1992 Cable Act. At the same time, we recognize that new competitors, such as wireless cable, satellite master antenna television services ("SMATVs") and telephone companies, and new technologies, such as video dialtone, are likely to change the video programming delivery marketplace. The Commission must therefore consider broad telecommunications issues which extend beyond  X_-the 1992 Cable Act and the record in this proceeding in determining whether to expand the cable home wiring rules in ways that could have competitive implications for cable operators and other multichannel video programming providers, as well as other providers of telecommunications services. Given the potential for the convergence of telephone, data and video technologies, it may be appropriate to consider requiring cable operators to permit subscriber access to inside wiring prior to termination of service in order to promote consumer choice and competition. Parity with telephone inside wiring may also be desirable if a cable operator wants to provide telephone or other common carrier service over its coaxial cable, but the record in this proceeding does not provide us with sufficient information upon which to base such a determination. The Commission will therefore further explore this  Xy-issue in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("NPRM") in CS Docket No. 95184 being adopted concurrently herewith.  X6-x9.` ` In addition, we determine that our current rules (as well as our revised rules described below) do not constitute an unconstitutional taking, because they implement a clear statutory directive and provide that, upon termination of service, the cable operator can  X-receive just compensation for its home wiring or remove the wiring. See United States v.  X-Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., which states that "so long as compensation is available for  X-those whose property is in fact taken, the governmental action is not unconstitutional."JO X-ԍx474 U.S. 121, 128 (1985).J Nor do we believe that our rules are rendered unconstitutional by the fact that the cable operator is deemed to have waived the availability of compensation if it fails to remove its home wiring within a given time period following termination of service. Compensation is available, under reasonable terms and conditions, if the cable operator chooses to take that option. See  XT-United States v. Locke,IT X#-ԍx471 U.S. 84, 107 (1985).I which rejects a Fifth Amendment taking claim where the plaintiff failed to comply with a statutory requirement for filing a mining claim that would have  X(-indicated its intent to retain its property right. Texaco, Inc. v. ShortJ( X&-ԍx454 U.S. 516, 530 (1982).J notes that the U.S. Supreme Court has never required giving compensation to a private property owner who fails"b 0*((y" to take reasonable actions imposed by law for the consequences of his own neglect. We note that the prescribed time period (formerly 30 days and, as described below, now seven business days) within which a cable operator may remove the cable home wiring it owns provides the operator with a reasonable opportunity to remove the wire if it so wishes.  X-x 10.` ` With regard to NYNEX's contention that consumer access to cable home wiring prior to termination of service would allow consumers to obtain broadband services from more than one multichannel video programming service provider simultaneously over one coaxial cable, it is our understanding that, while such simultaneous use may be possible  X1-in the laboratory, it is not technically or economically feasible in the marketplace at the  X -present time.  X -ԍxSee, e.g., TKR Cable Company ("TKR") Opposition at 56; Time Warner Response at 14. Apparently, for example, broadband networks are highly susceptible to signal impairments from outside sources, such as overtheair broadcast signals, a danger that would be magnified significantly by the insertion of an additional broadband service within the  X -wiring itself. d X-ԍxSee, e.g., Ex Parte Letter from Continental Cablevision, Inc. to William F. Caton, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (January 26, 1995). Therefore, we deny NYNEX's petition as premature insofar as it seeks rules designed to allow simultaneous use by a broadband video competitor of excess capacity on cable home wiring. Furthermore, we note that the current cable wiring rules do not prohibit simultaneous use, regardless of whether the cable operator or the subscriber owns or controls the cable home wiring. Because we agree that simultaneous use of the same wire by competitors could promote competition and increase consumer choice, however, if simultaneous use of cable wiring becomes economically and technically feasible, the Commission may address any issues raised at that time.  X- xB.` ` Disposition of Cable Home Wiring upon Termination of Service(#`  W<x` ` 1. Background   X-  X-x 11.` ` The Cable Wiring Order provides that when a subscriber calls to voluntarily terminate cable service, the operator is required, if it proposes to remove the wiring, to inform the subscriber (a) that he or she may purchase the wire, and (b) what the cost perfoot charge  Xg-is.]g X"-ԍxCable Wiring Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 1438.] If the subscriber declines to purchase the home wiring, the operator must remove it  XP-within 30 days or lose the right to remove it or restrict its use.]P X$-ԍxId.; See 47 C.F.R.  76.802.] These rules were designed to advance Section 16(d)'s goals: to avoid the disruption of having the wiring removed and to"9f 0*(("  X-permit subscribers to use the wiring with an alternative video service provider.] Xy-ԍxCable Wiring Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 1435.]  W<x` ` 2. Petitions   X-x 12.` ` Wireless Cable Association International, Inc. ("WCA") asserts that cable operators may attempt to deter subscribers from switching to alternative multichannel video programming service providers by claiming that they intend to remove the cable wiring even  X_-if they intend to abandon it.O_{ X -ԍxSee WCA Petition at 35.O WCA posits that the cable operator might falsely proclaim such an intent in order to prevent an alternative provider from using the wiring during the 30day period afforded the operator to remove the wiring. WCA argues that a cable operator could thus force a subscriber who wants to receive service from an alternative provider to either: (a) go without service for up to 30 days; (b) tolerate the inconvenience and "visual blight" of having a second cable installed; or (c) pay for cabling that the cable operator generally abandons. WCA claims that, since some subscribers might elect to remain with the incumbent cable operator rather than face such a choice, the current rules could defeat the  X -purpose behind Section 16(d).: . X-ԍxId.:  Xy-x 13.` ` WCA proposes that the Commission take several steps to address its concern: (a) decrease the period following termination during which cable operators must remove cable home wiring from 30 days to seven days; (b) prohibit cable operators from terminating service until either the cable is removed or the sevenday period expires; and (c) establish procedures for the filing of complaints against cable operators that demonstrate a pattern of  X-misrepresenting their intentions to remove wiring.B X-ԍxId. at 56.B In addition, WCA urges the Commission to bar cable operators from discriminating against consumers who terminate service in favor  X-of an alternative service provider.B X-ԍxId. at 67.B Finally, WCA suggests that the "appointment window"  X-rules adopted in MM Docket No. 92263 (Customer Service Standards)Y G  X!-ԍxSee 47 CFR  76.309(c)(2)(iii).Y apply to appointments to remove wiring, and that a failure to comply would result in the automatic  X-transfer of the wiring to the subscriber.N!  X>%-ԍxWCA Petition at 5, n.8.N Several parties have filed comments in support of" !0*((~"  X-WCA's proposals." Xy-ԍxSee USTA Supporting Statement at 2; WJBTV Limited Partnership Response at n.2; Bell Atlantic Response at n.7.  X-x 14.` ` In response, TKR Cable Company argues that WCA's claim that operators will falsely state their intention to remove the wiring is "speculative," and, even if true, would not  X-warrant action on reconsideration.O#d X-ԍXxTKR Opposition at 67.(#O Similarly, Time Warner asserts that WCA's concern that  X-cable operators will discriminate against customers who choose an alternative service provider is unfounded because a cable operator cannot require any subscriber to purchase his home wiring, and that WCA's proposal to shorten the period for operators to remove or abandon the wiring from 30 days to seven days is "simply another twist on the argument articulated by  X1-NYNEX supporting forced abandonment of the wiring upon installation."[$1 X-ԍxTime Warner Response at 1415 and n. 29. [ Moreover, NCTA  X -argues that WCA's proposals are merely an attempt by alternative video programming service providers to gain a "free ride" off wiring installed by and belonging to the incumbent cable operator. As an alternative, NCTA states that alternative providers could offer to purchase the wiring from the incumbent operator, or at least offer to reimburse the subscriber if the  X -subscriber chooses to purchase the wiring.H%  X5-ԍxNCTA Opposition at 23.H NCTA further argues that the 30day removal period ensures that subscribers have ample time to decide whether or not to purchase the  X-wiring.  Xb-x15.` ` In reply, WCA asserts that none of the responses addresses the fundamental unfairness of permitting cable operators to discriminate against subscribers who terminate  X4-service in favor of an alternative service provider.B&4w X\-ԍxWCA Reply at 34.B WCA argues that, pursuant to the  X-uniform pricing mandate of the 1992 Cable Act, cable operators should be prohibited from establishing separate purchase policies for those who terminate service in order to subscribe to  X-another distributor's offering.g'(  X -ԍxId. at 45. See also WCA Petition at 67.g WCA further states that NCTA's argument that the alternative service provider could purchase the wiring ignores two points: first, the alternative provider often cannot use the incumbent operator's wiring, and thus a delay in the removal of the  X-wiring forces the consumer either to have two wires installed or to delay installation of the new service; second, there is an anticonsumer impact of fraudulently inducing anyone (including the alternative service provider) to purchase home wiring that the cable operator"| '0*((P"  X-intends to abandon, since that cost will ultimately be passed on to the consumer.B( Xy-ԍxId. at 56.B Regarding  X-its proposal to shorten the length of time afforded a cable operator to remove home wiring that is not purchased by a terminating subscriber, WCA asserts that Time Warner provides no factual support for its claim that requiring the removal of home wiring within seven days is  X-tantamount to a forced abandonment.@){ X-ԍxId. at 6.@ Indeed, WCA argues that such a suggestion is "absurd," given that NCTA's own voluntary customer standards, and the Commission's customer service standards, provide that service interruptions generally must be repaired within one day and that standard new installations must be complete within seven business  XH-days.e*H. X' -ԍxId. at 67. See also WCA Petition at 5.e Finally, WCA asserts that NCTA's argument that the thirtyday time period ensures that subscribers have ample time to determine whether to purchase the wiring is "disingenuous, at best," since the thirty day period for removal of the home wiring does not  X -begin running until the subscriber decides whether or not to make a purchase.B+  X-ԍxId. at n.11B  X -x16.` ` In addition, Ameritech New Media Enterprises, Inc. ("Ameritech") proposes  X -that ownership of cable home wiring should transfer to the subscriber upon termination.,  X-ԍxSee Ex Parte Letter from Ameritech to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (September 7, 1995). Ameritech proposes that, at a minimum, in cases of voluntary termination where a subscriber is notified of the right to purchase his or her home wiring and the subscriber exercises that right, constructive ownership should vest with the subscriber immediately and the subscriber should be free to authorize the connection of the wiring to a competing service provider. Ameritech asserts that failure of the incumbent cable provider to notify the subscriber of his or her right to purchase the home wiring upon termination should result in the immediate  X-transfer of ownership rights in the wiring to the subscriber.:-0  X-ԍxId.:  W<x` ` 3. Discussion   X-x17.` ` As we noted in the Cable Wiring Order, the purpose of Section 16(d) is to promote consumer choice and competition by permitting subscribers to avoid the disruption of  X-having their home wiring removed upon voluntary termination, and to subsequently utilize  X~-that wiring for an alternative video programming service.].~  X'-ԍxCable Wiring Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 1435.] While we believe that our current"~ .0*((_"  X-rules advance these goals,/ Xy-ԍxAgain, our current rules provide that when a subscriber calls to voluntarily terminate cable service, the operator is required, if it proposes to remove the wiring, to (a) inform the subscriber that he or she may purchase the wire, and (b) what the cost per foot charge is.  X4-Cable Wiring Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 1438. we believe that they do not address certain issues such as when actual control of the home wiring transfers to the subscriber that could cause needless consumer confusion and marketplace uncertainty. We therefore believe that the goals of Section 16(d) would be better served if our rules set forth a simple, clear process by which: (a) consumers can obtain, in a single contact, the information they need to decide whether they wish to purchase their home wiring upon termination; (b) consumers can thereafter quickly and easily use the wiring to connect to an alternative video programming service provider; and (c) cable operators' legitimate property rights are protected. Thus, we hereby amend our rules regarding the disposition of home wiring upon the voluntary termination of service as follows.  X -x18.` ` During the initial telephone call in which a subscriber advises the cable operator that he or she is voluntarily terminating service, the operator if it owns and intends to remove the home wiring must inform the subscriber of four things:  X -Xx(a) that the cable operator owns the home wiring as discussed in the Cable Wiring  X-Order, the record reveals that, in many circumstances, the subscriber already owns the home wiring at termination (e.g., where the operator has charged the subscriber for the wiring upon installation, has treated the wiring as belonging to the subscriber for tax purposes, or where state and/or local law treats cable home wiring as a fixture); it is  X8-the operator's responsibility to maintain adequate records to document its ownership;;086 X-ԍxCable Wiring Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 1437. A "fixture" is an article of personal  X -property that has been so annexed to the realty that it is regarded as part of the land. See  X-Black's Law Dictionary 574 (5th ed. 1979).;(# Xx(b) that the cable operator intends to remove the home wiring;(# Xx(c) that the subscriber has a right to purchase the home wiring; and(# Xx(d) what the perfoot replacement cost and total charge for the wiring would be, including the replacement cost for any passive splitters attached to the wiring on the  X-subscriber's side of the demarcation point1 X#-ԍxSee Section II.E. below for our discussion of the inclusion of passive splitters within the definition of cable home wiring. our current rules state that the operator" [ 10*(("  X-must inform the subscriber of the perfoot replacement cost,l2 Xy-ԍxIn the Cable Wiring Order (at n. 39), we stated that we expected the per foot charge to be based on the replacement cost of coaxial cable in the community; for instance, we noted that the record indicated that new coaxial cable was being sold for six cents per foot by District Cablevision in Washington, D.C.l and that its charge for the wiring may be based on "a reasonable approximation" of the length of cabling in  X-the subscriber's premises.e36 X-ԍXxCable Wiring Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 1438.(#e An operator has two options for making a "reasonable approximation" of the total charge during the contact terminating service. First, the operator can develop schedules to make such approximations based on readily available information, such as whether the subscriber lives in a single family dwelling or an apartment, the number of outlets installed, or the number of television sets in use. If the operator chooses to develop such schedules, it must place them in a public file and make them available for public inspection during regular business hours. In the alternative, the operator may maintain records reflecting the actual amount of home wiring installed on subscribers' premises, but this information must be available for calculating the total charge for the wiring during the initial phone call.(# Where an operator fails to adhere to the above procedures, it will be deemed to have relinquished immediately any and all ownership interests in the home wiring; thus, the operator will not be entitled to compensation for the wiring and may make no subsequent attempt to remove it or restrict its use. By referring to "subscriber" herein, we do not intend to prohibit a subscriber from delegating to an agent the task of terminating service and authorizing the purchase of home wiring on his or her behalf.  X4-x19.` ` We believe that the vast majority of subscribers who terminate cable service do so over the telephone. If, however, a subscriber voluntarily terminates cable service in person (i.e., at the cable operator's offices), the same procedures apply. If a subscriber requests termination in writing, it is the operator's responsibility if it intends to remove the wiring to make reasonable efforts to contact the subscriber prior to the date of service termination and provide the subscriber with the information set forth above. Again, where an operator fails to comply with these procedures, it will be deemed to have relinquished immediately any and all ownership interests in the home wiring; thus, the operator will not be entitled to compensation for the wiring and may make no subsequent attempt to remove it or restrict its use.  X7-x20.` ` If the cable operator informs the subscriber as described above, and, at that  X -point, the subscriber agrees to purchase the wiring, constructive ownership over the home wiring will transfer to the subscriber immediately, and the subscriber will be permitted to"  30*((="  X-authorize a competing service provider to connect with and use the home wiring.4 Xy-ԍxOf course, as NCTA states, the alternative video programming service provider is free to reimburse the subscriber for the cost of the home wiring. We expect such reimbursement to be a common practice, since from both an economic and customer relations standpoint, reimbursing a subscriber for the purchase of existing home wiring will almost certainly be preferable to rewiring the premises. We believe that such a transfer of control presents no Fifth Amendment difficulties, since the  X-operator will ultimately be compensated for its wiring (at which point actual ownership of the  X-wiring will transfer to the subscriber).5 X -ԍxSee United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, 474 U.S. 121, 128 (1985) (Fifth Amendment does not prohibit "takings," only uncompensated ones). We are, however, cognizant of the potential for harmful signal leakage if this changeover is mishandled. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its concern over the threat posed by excessive signal leakage, and in particular the threat to aeronautical communications and other safetyoflife users that operate over the same  X_-frequencies.6_ X-ԍxSee, e.g., Amendment of Part 76 of the Commission's Rules to Add Frequency Channelling Requirements and Restrictions and to Require Monitoring for Signal Leakage  X-From Cable Television Systems, Second Report and Order in Docket No. 21006, 99 F.C.C.2d  X-512 (1984); recon. denied, 100 F.C.C.2d 117 (1985). Thus, where the incumbent cable operator has not yet terminated service and  XH-"capped off" its line,7H+  X$-ԍx"Capping off" is a procedure whereby a terminating "cap" is placed over a wire to prevent potentially harmful signal leakage. the alternative video programming service provider will be responsible for ensuring that the incumbent's wiring is properly capped off in accordance with the  X -Commission's signal leakage requirements.8  X-ԍxSee 47 C.F.R.  76.605(a)(13) and 76.610 76.617. Among other sanctions, the Commission has the authority to impose forfeiture penalties for violations of its signal leakage rules of up to $25,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, not to exceed  XM-$250,000 for a single act or failure to act. See Communications Act, Section 503(b), 47 U.S.C.  503(b).  If there is no alternative provider i.e., if the subscriber is terminating service but will not be using the home wiring to receive another multichannel video service the cable operator will remain responsible for properly capping off its own line. We require incumbent cable operators to take reasonable steps within their control to ensure that the alternative service provider has access to the home wiring at the demarcation point (e.g., by providing prompt access to the cable operator's lockbox where the placement of the lockbox impedes access to the demarcation point), and for incumbents and alternative multichannel video programming delivery service providers to minimize the potential for signal leakage, theft of service and unnecessary disruption of the consumer's premises. "4 80*((*"Ԍ X-x21.` ` If, on the other hand, the subscriber declines to purchase the home wiring, the operator will have seven business days, rather than the current 30 days, to remove the wiring. If the operator does not remove the home wiring within this seven business day period, the operator may make no subsequent attempt to remove it or restrict its use. We believe that requiring subscribers to wait 30 days before learning whether the cable operator would remove its wiring causes needless uncertainty for the consumer and the possibility of a  Xv-lengthy disruption in service. We also believe that, under normal operating conditions, it is not unreasonable to require cable operators to remove their wiring within seven business days. We note, in this regard, that the Commission's customer service standards, and NCTA's own voluntary standards, provide that cable operators should perform standard installations within  X -seven business days."9  X -ԍx47 C.F.R.  76.309(c)(2); see Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket No. 92263, 7 FCC Rcd 8641, 864344 (1993) (noting NCTA standard and that Congress suggested that the NCTA standard may be an appropriate federal "benchmark")." We agree with WCA that if cable operators can be expected to install home wiring within seven business days, it is not unreasonable to expect them to remove that  X -wiring within the same time frame.]: M X-ԍxSee WCA Petition at 5; WCA Reply at 7.] However, we decline at this time to apply the Commission's "appointment window" rules to appointments to remove wiring; we believe that WCA has not submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that such a change is necessary at this time. Given the uniform federal and industry standard on installations, we reject Time Warner's contention that a sevenday removal period is a forced, rather than a voluntary,  Xy-abandonment of property. It is the operator's failure to act within a reasonable time after the subscriber requests that its wiring be removed not the Commission's rule that  XK-extinguishes the cable operator's rights.;K X-ԍxSee Texaco, 454 U.S. at 530 (noting that the Court has never required compensation to a private property owner who fails to take reasonable actions imposed by law for the consequences of his own neglect). We also reject NCTA's assertion that a 30day removal period is required to ensure that consumers have adequate time to decide whether or not to purchase the wiring. If the subscriber asks for more time to make a decision on whether to purchase the home wiring, the seven businessday period will not begin running until the subscriber declines to purchase the wiring. Until the subscriber contacts the operator with a decision, he or she may not use the wiring to connect to an alternative service provider.  X-x22.` ` We believe that the above procedures, although not unduly burdensome, may not be necessary in most circumstances. We understand that cable operators typically abandon cable home wiring because the cost and effort required to remove it generally outweigh its value. Abandoning the wiring also permits easy reconnection if a subscriber later decides to reinstitute service. Accordingly, in most cases, the cable operator may simply remain silent on the subject of home wiring when the subscriber requests termination of service. If, for whatever reason, the cable operator does not discuss the disposition of the"  ;0*(([" home wiring with the subscriber in accordance with the above procedures, the operator will be deemed to have relinquished immediately any and all ownership interests in the home wiring. Thus, the operator will not be entitled to compensation for the wiring and may make no subsequent attempt to remove it or restrict its use.  X-x23.` ` While we acknowledge WCA's concerns that cable operators could misrepresent their intention to remove the wiring, or that operators may discriminate against subscribers who terminate service in favor of an alternative provider, there is no evidence in the record for us to conclude that these are significant problems. Moreover, we believe we  X1-have alleviated WCA's concern regarding subscribers being without service for up to 30 days by requiring cable operators to remove the home wiring within seven business days. Also, a subscriber could be assured of continuous service simply by agreeing to purchase the home  X -wiring at termination of service.<  Xe -ԍxAgain, we believe that, as a matter of economics and customer relations, alternative video programming service providers may often reimburse subscribers for the cost of the home wiring.  X -x24.` ` As stated above, we believe that the above clarifications and modifications will further the purposes of Section 16(d). Consumers will be presented with the information they need regarding their home wiring in a single telephone call, and can quickly and easily use the wiring to connect to an alternative video programming service. Incumbent operators' responsibilities are clearly defined and their property rights protected. Alternative video  XK-programming delivery service providers will be able to assure potential customers that switching services will not be an onerous process and that their service will not be disrupted.  X-x C.` ` Demarcation Point for Multiple Dwelling Units with NonLoopThrough Wiring(#`  X-  W<x` ` 1. Background  X-x25.` ` Section 16(d) of the 1992 Cable Act states that the Commission shall prescribe  X|-rules concerning cable wire "within the premises of [the] subscriber."i=|K Xx-ԍxCommunications Act,  624(i), 47 U.S.C.  544(i).i Section 76.5(ll) of the Commission's rules defines cable home wiring as the "internal wiring contained within the  XN-premises of a subscriber which begins at the demarcation point."I>N X"-ԍx47 C.F.R.  76.5(ll).I Under the current rules, the demarcation point is the point from which the customer has the right to purchase cable home wiring upon voluntary termination of service, the location from which the subscriber may control the internal home wiring if he or she owns it, and the point where a potential alternative multichannel video programming service provider can attach its wiring to the  X-subscriber's wiring in order to provide service. The Commission's rules set the demarcation">0*((," point for single dwelling units "at (or about) twelve inches outside of where the cable wire enters the subscriber's premises," and for multiple dwelling units "at (or about) twelve inches  X-outside of where the cable wire enters the subscriber's [individual] dwelling unit."? XK-ԍx47 C.F.R.  76.5(mm)(1)(2) (1992); see also Cable Wiring Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 1437. The  X-Cable Wiring Order states that this rule is consistent with the legislative history and comments, and that it gives alternative providers adequate access to cable home wiring so that  X-they may connect the wiring to their systems without disrupting the subscriber's premises.]@d X -ԍxCable Wiring Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 1437.]  Xa-x26.` ` The wiring in multiple dwelling unit buildings is generally in either a nonloopthrough or loopthrough configuration. In a nonloopthrough configuration, each subscriber has a dedicated line extending from a trunk or feeder line to the individual's premises. The point at which the drop meets the feeder line in multiple dwelling unit buildings is usually in a security box or utility closet. Depending on the size and layout of the multiple dwelling unit building, security boxes can be located on each floor on a stairwell wall or in a closet, or at a single point either inside a basement or outside the multiple dwelling unit building. A loopthrough configuration is one in which a single cable provides service to a group of subscribers by being strung from one subscriber's unit to the next subscriber's unit in the same building. See Section II.D. below for our discussion of loopthrough wiring configurations.  WM<x` ` 2. Petitions   X-x27.` ` NYNEX asks that the Commission reconsider its decision to locate the demarcation point for multiple dwelling units at or about twelve inches outside of where the  X-cable enters a subscriber's individual dwelling unit.A X-ԍxThe demarcation point for single dwelling unit installations is not an issue raised on reconsideration. Where there are active electronics  X-located in the multiple dwelling unit, NYNEX contends that "subscriber control should extend  X-to the point at which unpowered coaxial cable begins."EB X% -ԍxNYNEX Petition at 3.E Where there are no active electronics located in the multiple dwelling unit, NYNEX asserts that "subscriber control of cable home wiring should extend to the grounding block, or if there is no grounding block, to  X~-an interface point established on the exterior of the multiple unit premises."BC~b  X$-ԍxId. at 46.B NYNEX states  Xg-that the Commission's current rules are anticompetitive because they require an alternative cable service provider to install duplicate wire up to the twelveinch point outside of where the wire enters the subscriber's premises, which would either be prohibitively expensive or"9 C0*(("  X-impossible due to space limitations or the location of the wiring inside a wall in a building.mD Xy-ԍxId. at 3; see also Pacific Bell Comments at 12.m  X-x28.` ` Liberty Cable Company, Inc. ("Liberty"), asks that the demarcation point for multiple dwelling units be at the point outside a subscriber's premises and within the common areas of the multiple dwelling unit building where the individual subscriber's wires can be detached from the cable operator's common wires without harming the multiple dwelling unit and without interfering with the cable operator's provision of service to other residents in the  X_-building.nE_{ X -ԍxLiberty Petition at 45; see also WJBTV Response at 3.n Liberty contends that this would allow alternative multichannel video programming service providers to access existing cable home wiring without disrupting either the subscriber's home or the multiple dwelling unit building's common area, and would enhance competition by making it easier for the subscriber to switch from one alternative  X -multichannel video programming service provider to another.GF . X-ԍxLiberty Petition at 2.G In response to Time Warner's  X -suggestion that any "forced abandonment" of cable wiring within a multiple dwelling unit building would constitute an impermissible taking, Liberty asserts that the inside wiring rules do not compel the permanent physical possession of the wiring by a third party, but merely regulate the manner in which the wiring is dealt with upon termination of the voluntary commercial relationship between the cable operator, the subscriber and the multiple dwelling  Xy-unit building owner.eGy X -ԍxSee Liberty Response (November 14, 1994) at 7.e Citing FCC v. Florida Power Corp.,EHy X-ԍx480 U.S. 245 (1987).E Liberty argues that this type of regulation, affecting only the terms and conditions of a voluntary commercial relationship, does not constitute a taking.  X-x29.` ` WCA agrees with Liberty, stating that the Commission should establish the demarcation point in multiple dwelling units "at the point where the wire is solely dedicated  X-to serving a single unit."@IC  X-ԍxWCA Reply at 7.@ USTA supports the petitions for reconsideration submitted by WCA, Liberty and NYNEX in asking the Commission to define the demarcation point to be  X-at a relatively convenient and cost effective access point.lJ  Xh#-ԍxUSTA Supporting Statement at 2; USTA Reply Comments at 56.l USTA reasons that access to an alternative service provider should be no more burdensome than access by the existing  X-provider.:K  X&-ԍxId.: EIA/CEG supports adoption of generalized demarcation policies for cable, based"XK0*((o"  X-on the regulatory model now applied to telephone.L Xy-ԍxEIA/CEG Ex Parte Letter, supra note 11, at 1. But see Cable Telecommunications Association ("CATA") Ex Parte Comments (January 27, 1995) at 12 (treating cable and telephone infrastructures the same would, among other things, create a new "bottleneck" and the consumer would ultimately lose the opportunity to choose multiple broadband services from different providers).  X-x30.` ` On the other hand, NCTA, Time Warner and TKR Cable Company ("TKR") oppose Liberty's and NYNEX's proposals to change the demarcation point for multiple  X-dwelling units, arguing that the proposals do not definitively measure the exact point of demarcation and are contrary to the plain language of the statute. They argue that Section 16(d) of the 1992 Cable Act states that the home wiring rules are to apply to "cable installed  X_-by the cable operator within the premises of [the] subscriber."M_ X/-ԍxNCTA Opposition at 5 citing 47 U.S.C.  544(i) (1992); Time Warner Response at 4; TKR Opposition at 2. NCTA states that allowing a new service provider to go much beyond twelve inches invades the common wiring, which is  X1-the cable operator's property.FN1 X-ԍxNCTA Opposition at 5.F Time Warner recommends that the most practical demarcation point in multiple dwelling units is the wall plate in each individual unit, not beyond twelve  X -inches from where the wiring enters the individual dwelling unit.KO l  X -ԍxTime Warner Response at 2.K  W <x` `  3.  Discussion  X -x31.` ` We deny reconsideration of our rule setting the demarcation point for multiple dwelling units at or about twelve inches outside of where the cable wire enters the subscriber's dwelling unit. While the record in this proceeding does indicate that the Commission's current rules with regard to location of the demarcation point in multiple dwelling units may impede competition in the multichannel video programming delivery marketplace, the record is insufficient at this time to indicate whether a different demarcation point might better promote competition and consumer choice in the multichannel video programming delivery marketplace without an undue impact on competition in the market for other telecommunications services. We are concerned with more than simple competition in the broadband multichannel video programming market. We want to promote competition and consumer choice in all types of telecommunications markets through multiple technologies and services. The Commission therefore must consider broad telecommunications issues which extend beyond the 1992 Cable Act and the record in this proceeding before modifying the cable home wiring rules in ways that could have competitive implications for cable operators and other telecommunications service providers. Specifically, before the Commission can address the demarcation point in this context, we need a more"N O0*((" complete record on several issues, including the impact of the convergence of telephone, broadband video and other technologies on the demarcation point location, and the appropriate level of compensation to be paid to a cable operator if the demarcation point is moved farther away from the subscriber's unit.  X-x32.` ` Accordingly, while we deny reconsideration of our current definition of the cable demarcation point for multiple dwelling unit buildings, we believe that it would be appropriate to revisit this issue in a broader competitive context in other words, one which takes into account all of the technical and legal factors that come into play with the  X1-convergence of telephone, broadband video and other technologies. We are, therefore,  X -requesting comment on this demarcation point issue in our NPRM in CS Docket No. 95184  X -being adopted concurrently herewith. We expect to act quickly in the NPRM proceeding to resolve the demarcation point issue.  X - xD.` ` Multiple Dwelling Unit Buildings with LoopThrough Wiring(#`  W<x` ` 1. Background (#  Xf-x 33.` ` In a loopthrough cable wiring system, a single cable is used to provide service to either a portion of or an entire multiple dwelling unit building. Every subscriber on the  X8-loop is limited to receiving video services from the same provider; there is no capacity for individual choice. If the cable is broken or removed, signals to all succeeding units would be  X -interrupted. In the Cable Wiring Order, the Commission excluded multiple dwelling unit loopthrough wiring from the cable home wiring rules, reasoning that applying our rules to loopthrough wiring would give the building manager or the initial subscriber control over  X-cable service for all subscribers in the loop.]P X@-ԍxCable Wiring Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 1437.] Because loopthrough configurations are excluded from the home wiring rules, cable operators are not required to offer to sell the wire to subscribers upon termination of service, and no loopthrough subscriber has the right to purchase that portion of the loopthrough cable wiring located inside his or her dwelling unit. The ownership of loopthrough wiring therefore depends on a number of factors (e.g., who  XT-installed the wire, whether the wire has been sold and state fixture law) and is not affected by our rules.  W<x ` ` 2. Petitions   X-x!34.` ` NYNEX asks that loopthrough cable be included in the home wiring rules and controlled by the multiple dwelling unit building owner. NYNEX and USTA also propose that the Commission require that loopthrough and other configurations based on common use of unpowered coaxial cable be eliminated in all future multiple dwelling unit installations of""{P0*((!"  X-cable home wiring.QJ Xy-ԍxNYNEX Reply at 3; USTA Supporting Statement at 2. In addition, Bell Atlantic urges the Commission to bar exclusive contracts between cable operators and the owners or managers of multiple dwelling unit buildings, because such contracts allegedly circumvent the Commission's cable home wiring rules and deny residents the ability to choose between competing services. Bell Atlantic Response at 6. While the current record does not contain sufficient evidence to bear out Bell Atlantic's assertions and thus we do not address them  X-further here the parties are free to raise this issue in the context of the NPRM in CS Docket No. 95184, adopted concurrently herewith. Liberty also believes that loopthrough systems should be included in the home wiring rules and placed under the control of the building owner, but only in the limited situation where all subscribers on a loop simultaneously decide to switch from one  X-cable service provider to another.GR XF -ԍxLiberty Petition at 6.G  X-x"35.` ` On the other hand, NCTA, Time Warner and TKR agree with the Commission's exclusion of multiple dwelling unit building loopthrough configurations from  X_-the home wiring rules.xS_  X-ԍxNCTA Opposition at 8; Time Warner Response at 8; TKR Opposition at 35.x Time Warner argues that the frequent turnover of multiple dwelling  XH-unit residents makes inclusion of loopthrough multiple dwelling units impractical.KTH<  X5-ԍxTime Warner Response at 8.K  W < x` ` 3. Discussion (#  X -  X -x#36.` ` On reconsideration, we continue to exclude loopthrough wiring from our cable home wiring rules. Inclusion of loopthrough systems within these rules would be impractical, in part because establishing a separate demarcation point for each subscriber on a loopthrough system and deciding how much wiring each subscriber should have the option to buy are not feasible. Furthermore, loopthrough configurations, by their nature, preclude individual subscriber control, an essential element of the Commission's cable home wiring rules. Therefore, cable operators are not required to offer to sell loopthrough wiring to subscribers upon termination of service, and no loopthrough subscriber has the right to purchase loopthrough home wiring. We will, however, consider and request comment in our  X-Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("FNPRM") below regarding Liberty's proposal that we allow the building owner to purchase the home wiring when all of the subscribers on a loop simultaneously decide to switch to an alternative video programming service provider. We will also request comment on NYNEX's and USTA's proposal that we prohibit future loopthrough wiring installations and our authority, if any, to do so. " T0*((a"  X-x E.` ` Inclusion of Passive Splitters within Cable Home Wiring  W<x` ` 1. Background and Petitions  X-x$37.` ` Section 76.5(ll) of the Commission's rules defines cable home wiring as the internal wiring contained within the subscriber's premises which begins at the demarcation point. The rule specifically excludes from cable home wiring any active elements such as  X_-amplifiers, converter or decoder boxes, or remote control units.IU_ X-ԍx47 C.F.R.  76.5(ll).I In its petition for reconsideration, Liberty asks the Commission to "clarify that cable home wiring includes passive ancillary equipment such as splitters and conduits or molding in which the cable is  X -installed."GV y XD -ԍxLiberty Petition at 5.G Liberty asserts that including such passive equipment within the definition of cable home wiring will allow Liberty and other cable competitors to avoid problems that arise when space constraints prohibit the installation of multiple splitters or conduits to access an  X -individual subscriber's wires.BW * X-ԍxId. at 56.B Time Warner and NCTA oppose this request, contending that is was the specific intent of Congress to exclude any cable equipment other than actual  X -wiring.cX  X5-ԍxTime Warner Response at 7; NCTA Opposition at 78.c Time Warner further contends that conduit and molding should be excluded from the Commission's definition of cable home wiring because they are not cable equipment, but rather the property of the premises owner. Time Warner states that, at a minimum, splitters, which are passive cable equipment, should only be considered part of the home wiring if  XK-located within, or up to twelve inches outside the subscriber's premises.MYK X-ԍxTime Warner Response at 68.M  W<x` `  2. Discussion  X-x%38.` ` We grant Liberty's request that we include passive splitters within the definition of cable home wiring. Because passive splitters are a physically integral part of the home wiring, we believe that their exclusion could frustrate the purposes behind Section 16(d) of the 1992 Cable Act i.e., to permit subscribers to avoid the disruption of having their home wiring removed, and to subsequently utilize the home wiring for an alternative video programming service. For instance, if a cable operator is allowed to remove splitters attached to the home wiring without first offering to sell them to the terminating subscriber, the subscriber could be subjected to the same disruption and inconvenience that would occur if the home wiring was removed. In addition, we do not believe that it will harm the cable operator to be required to offer to sell splitters on the same replacement cost basis as wiring is to be offered. Therefore, operators will be required to offer to sell to a terminating subscriber" ? Y0*((" any passive splitters attached to the home wiring on the subscriber's side of the demarcation point, at no more than the replacement cost of the splitters.  X-x&39.` ` However, we deny Liberty's request that other passive equipment be included within the cable home wiring definition. We agree with Time Warner that molding and conduit are not necessarily cable equipment and are often the property of the premises owner. In addition, we believe that, considering the wide variety of passive equipment and related property, it would be too burdensome to require cable operators to be prepared to quote the replacement cost of such equipment and property upon the subscriber's termination of service. Nevertheless, we understand Liberty's concern that cable operators not be permitted to use their ownership of other property relating to the cable home wiring to frustrate the purposes of our cable home wiring rules and Section 16(d) of the 1992 Cable Act. We will therefore  X -prohibit cable operators from using any ownership interests they have in property located on the subscriber's side of the demarcation point, for example, cable molding or conduit, to prevent, impede, or in any way interfere with, a subscriber's right to use his or her home wiring to receive an alternative service.  Xy- III.xFURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING  XK- xA.` ` Multiple Dwelling Unit Buildings with LoopThrough Wiring(#`  X- x'40.` ` We solicit comment on Liberty's request that the Commission require cable operators to allow a building owner to purchase loopthrough wiring in the limited situation where all subscribers in a multiple dwelling unit building want to switch to a new service provider. We ask whether we should apply the same rules regarding compensation (i.e., wiring may be purchased at the perfoot replacement cost) and technical standards to loopthrough wiring that we now apply to nonloopthrough wiring. We solicit comment on the appropriate demarcation point for this limited application of the home wiring rules. We note, however, that we are concerned with allowing the multiple dwelling unit building owner to control the wiring since such control could arguably supersede subsequent subscribers' wishes. We therefore solicit comment on how to apportion control of a loopthrough wiring system, including how to assure that subscribers have a choice of multichannel video programming service providers. We further solicit comment on whether we should prohibit future installations of loopthrough wiring configurations, and whether we have the statutory authority to do so.  X -x B.` ` Others' Rights to Cable Home Wiring  X"-x(41.` ` We solicit comment on several issues raised in this proceeding regarding the rights of persons other than the subscriber or the cable operator to cable home wiring. For instance, it has been asserted that the Commission's cable home wiring rules do not apply when the owner of a multiple dwelling unit building terminates cable service for the entire"Q%Y0*(( $"  X-building in favor of an alternative multichannel video programming service provider.Z Xy-ԍxSee Ex Parte Letter from William R. Gaston, President, Marco Island Cable, Inc., to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (July 19, 1995).  X-According to the record, at least one cable operator has contended that no "voluntary  X-termination by the subscriber," as provided in Section 76.802 of our rules,G[d X-ԍx47 C.F.R.  76.802.G has occurred when it is the building owner or condominium association that terminates the service, or at  X-least that the subscriber has not voluntarily terminated the cable service.{\ Xj -ԍxSee Marco Cable Ex Parte Letter, supra note 90, at Attachment.{ In order to promote the goals of Section 16(d) and our rules thereunder, it may be appropriate for the subscriber (where there is a nonloopthrough wire configuration) or the building owner (where there is a loopthrough wire configuration) to be given the opportunity to purchase the cable home wiring under these circumstances. We request comment on this matter. In addition, we seek comment on whether this right of a building owner with a loopthrough system should only apply if all of the individual subscribers want to terminate service and switch to a new video service provider, as described in Section III.A. above.  X -x)42.` ` In addition, we ask for comment on the disposition of the cable home wiring in the event that a subscriber terminates cable service, elects not to purchase the wire and vacates the premises within the time period the operator has to remove the home wiring. Apparently some cable operators believe that our rule providing that the cable operator must remove the wire within 30 days (now seven business days) or make no subsequent attempt to remove it or to restrict its use does not apply if the subscriber vacates the premises before the 30day (now sevenbusinessday) period elapses. We believe that, as long as the cable operator has been allowed access to the premises to remove its wiring if it so wishes, whether the subscriber vacates the premises has no bearing on the application of our rules, and that the  X-cable operator must therefore remove the wire within seven business days] X-ԍxAs discussed above, we are amending this rule so that operators will have seven business days to remove the wiring, rather than 30 days. of the subscriber's termination of service, or make no subsequent attempt to remove it or to restrict its use, regardless of who subsequently resides in the premises. We request comment on this matter. Furthermore, we seek comment on whether, when the subscriber voluntarily terminating cable service does not own the premises, the premises owner should have the right to purchase the  X-cable home wiring if and only if the subscriber elects not to purchase the wire. "|b ]0*(("  X- IV.xREGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS  X< xA.` ` Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis for the First Order on  W<Reconsideration (#`  X-x*43.` ` Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.  601612, the  Xw-Commission's final analysis with respect to the First Order on Reconsideration is as follows:  XK-x+44.` ` Need and Purpose of this Action. The Commission amends its rules pertaining to cable home wiring to better effectuate the purposes of Section16(d) of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, 47 U.S.C. 544(i) (1992).  X -x,45.` ` Summary of Issues Raised by the Public in response to the Initial Regulatory  X -Flexibility Analysis. There were no comments submitted in response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.  X-x-46.` ` Significant Alternatives Considered and Rejected. Petitioners representing cable interests and competitive video providers did not submit comments regarding the administrative burden of the home wiring rules.  X?<x B.` ` Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis for the Further Notice of  W)<Proposed Rulemaking (#`  X-x.47.` ` 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  X-comments on the rest of the FNPRM, but they must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the regulatory flexibility analysis. The Secretary shall cause  Xs-a copy of the FNPRM, 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  XG-Flexibility Act, Pub. L. No. 96354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C.  601 et seq. (1981).  X-x/48.` ` Reason for Action. Section 16(d) of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 requires the Commission to prescribe rules and regulations regarding the disposition of cable wiring within the subscriber's premises after the subscriber  X -terminates service. This FNPRM proposes to allow the multiple dwelling unit building owner to purchase the loopthrough cable wiring in the situation where all subscribers on a loop in a multiple dwelling unit building want to simultaneously switch to the same alternative  X#-multichannel video programming service provider. This FNPRM also proposes: (a) to require that the subscriber (where there is a nonloopthrough wire configuration) or the building owner (where there is a loopthrough wire configuration) be provided with the opportunity to purchase the cable home wiring when the owner of a multiple dwelling unit building terminates cable service for the entire building in favor of an alternative multichannel";']0*((&" video programming service provider; (b) to clarify that, as long as the cable operator has been allowed access to the premises to remove its wiring if it so wishes, the cable operator must remove the wire within seven business days of the subscriber's termination of service, or make no subsequent attempt to remove it or to restrict its use, regardless of when the subscriber vacates the premises and who subsequently resides in the premises; and (c) when the subscriber voluntarily terminating cable service does not own the premises, to give the premises owner the right to purchase the cable home wiring, if and only if the subscriber elects not to purchase the wire.  X1-x049.` ` Objectives. To propose rules which implement Section 16(d) of the 1992 Cable Act and promote its goals of protecting subscribers from unnecessary disruption and expense caused by the removal of home wiring and to allow subscribers to use the wiring for an alternative multichannel video programming service provider.  X -x150.` ` Legal Basis. Action as proposed for this rulemaking is contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j) and 624(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j) and 544(i).  Xf-x251.` ` 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.  X#-  X -x352.` ` Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements. None.  X-x453.` ` Federal Rules which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict with these Rules. None.  X-x 554.` ` Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing Impact on Small Entities and  X-Consistent with Stated Objectives. None.  Xs- V.xPROCEDURAL PROVISIONS  XE-x655.` ` Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. This First Order on  X0-Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Order and FNPRM") contains either a proposed or modified information collection. As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") to take this opportunity to comment on the information collections contained  X -in this Order and FNPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 10413. Public and agency comments are due at the same time as other comments on the  X"-FNPRM; OMB comments are due 60 days from the date of publication of this Order and  X#-FNPRM in the Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information";']0*((%" on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.  X-x756.` ` Ex parte Rules NonRestricted Proceeding. This is a nonrestricted 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.  Xx-See generally 47 C.F.R.  1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).  XL-x857.` ` Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before March 18, 1996 and reply comments on or before April 17, 1996. 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 reply comments, you must file an original plus nine copies. 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.  X8-x958.` ` Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified information collections are due March 18, 1996. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified information collections on or before 60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections  X-contained herein should be submitted to Dorothy Conway, Federal Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to dconway@fcc.gov and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to fain_t@al.eop.gov.  XR- VI.xORDERING CLAUSES  X$-x:59.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petitions for Reconsideration in MM Docket No. 92260 are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as provided above herein.  X -x;60.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Part 76 of the Commission's rules IS  X!-HEREBY AMENDED as shown in Appendix B. The portions of the First Order on  X"-Reconsideration imposing information collections will not go into effect until approved by the Office of Management and Budget.  XY%-x<61.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j) and 624(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j) and 544(i), NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of proposed amendments to Part 76, in accordance with the"+']0*((%"  X-proposals, discussions, and statement of issues in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and that COMMENT IS SOUGHT regarding such proposals, discussion, and statement of issues.  X-x=62.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Secretary shall send a copy of this First  X-Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L.  XN-No. 96354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C.  601 et seq. (1981). x` ` hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` ` hhWilliam F. Caton x` ` hhActing Secretary  X-"]0*(("  X-) APPENDIX A ă nParties Who Filed Petitions for Reconsideration, Responses and Replies  X< Petitions For Reconsideration of the Cable Wiring Order Petition of Liberty Cable Company , Inc. for Reconsideration and Clarification, filed April 1, Xx1993 ("Liberty Petition") (# Petition for Reconsideration of the NYNEX Telephone Companies, filed April 1, 1993 Xx("NYNEX Petition")(# Wireless Cable Association International, Inc. Petition for Partial Reconsideration, filed April Xx1, 1993 ("WCA Petition")(#  X - Responses to Petitions for Reconsideration Response of Bell Atlantic to Petitions for Reconsideration, filed May 18, 1993 (" Bell Atlantic XxResponse") (# Comments of the Consumer Electronics Group of the Electronic Industries Association, filed XxMay 15, 1993 ("EIA/CEG Comments").(# Supporting Comments of GTE Service Corporation, filed May 18, 1993 ("GTE Supporting XxComments")(# National Cable Television Association, Inc. Opposition to Petitions for Reconsideration filed XxMay 18, 1993 ("NCTA Opposition") (# Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell Comments on Petitions for Reconsideration, filed May 18, Xx1993 ("Pacific Bell Comments")(# Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. Response to Petitions for Reconsideration, filed XxMay 18, 1993 ("Time Warner Response")(# Opposition of TKR Cable Company to Petitions for Reconsideration, filed May 18, 1993 Xx("TKR Opposition")(# Supporting Statement of the United States Telephone Association, filed May 18, 1993 Xx("USTA Supporting Statement")(# Response of WJBTV Limited Partnership to Petitions for Reconsideration, filed April 15, x1993 ("WJBTV Limited Partnership Response")  X- Replies to Responses to Petitions for Reconsideration Reply of Bell Atlantic to Comments on Reconsideration, filed June 3, 1993 ("Bell Atlantic xReply") Reply of the Nynex Telephone Companies to Oppositions to their Petition for xReconsideration, filed June 3, 1993 ("NYNEX Reply") Reply Comments of the United States Telephone Association, filed June 2, 1993 ("USTA xReply Comments") Wireless Cable Association Reply to Oppositions to Petitions for Reconsideration, filed May x28, 1993 ("WCA Reply")"$']0*((%"  X-) APPENDIX B ă .Revised Rules  X-  X- Part 76 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulation is amended as follows:  Xv-1.xPart 76.5 is amended to read as follows:  X_-x  XH-Section 76.5(ll) Cable home wiring. xThe internal wiring contained within the premises of a subscriber which begins at the demarcation point. Cable home wiring includes passive splitters on the subscriber's side of  X -the demarcation point, but does not include any active elements such as amplifiers, converter or decoder boxes, or remote control units.  X -2.xSection 76.802 is amended to read as follows:  Xy- Section 76.802 Disposition of Cable Home Wiring . x(a) Upon voluntary termination of cable service by a subscriber, a cable operator shall not remove the cable home wiring unless it gives the subscriber the opportunity to purchase the wiring at the replacement cost, and the subscriber declines. The cost is to be determined based on the replacement cost per foot of the cable home wiring multiplied by the length in feet of the cable home wiring, and the replacement cost of any passive splitters located on the subscriber's side of the demarcation point. If the subscriber declines to acquire the cable home wiring, the cable system operator must then remove it within seven (7) business days, under normal operating conditions, or make no subsequent attempt to remove it or to restrict its use. x(b) During the initial telephone call in which a subscriber contacts a cable operator to voluntarily terminate cable service, the cable operator if it owns and intends to remove the home wiring must inform the subscriber: Xx(1) that the cable operator owns the home wiring;(# Xx(2) that the cable operator intends to remove the home wiring;(# Xx(3) that the subscriber has the right to purchase the home wiring; and(# Xx(4) what the perfoot replacement cost and total charge for the wiring would be (the total charge may be based on either the actual length of cable wiring and the actual number of passive splitters on the customer's side of the demarcation point, or a reasonable approximation thereof; in either event, the information necessary for calculating the total charge must be available for use during the initial phone call).(#"#']0*((%"ԌXx(# x(c) If the subscriber voluntarily terminates cable service in person, the procedures set forth in subsection (b) hereof apply. x(d) If the subscriber requests termination of cable service in writing, it is the operator's responsibility if it wishes to remove the wiring to make reasonable efforts to contact the subscriber prior to the date of service termination and follow the procedures set forth in subsection (b) hereof.  XH- x(e) If the cable operator fails to adhere to the procedures described in subsection (b) hereof, it will be deemed to have relinquished immediately any and all ownership interests in the home wiring; thus, the operator will not be entitled to compensation for the wiring and shall make no subsequent attempt to remove it or restrict its use. x(f) If the cable operator adheres to the procedures described in subsection (b) hereof, and, at that point, the subscriber agrees to purchase the wiring, constructive ownership over the home wiring will transfer to the subscriber immediately, and the subscriber will be permitted to authorize a competing service provider to connect with and use the home wiring. x(g) If the cable operator adheres to the procedures described in subsection (b) hereof, and the subscriber asks for more time to make a decision regarding whether to purchase the home wiring, the seven (7) business day period described in subsection (a) hereof will not begin running until the subscriber declines to purchase the wiring; in addition, the subscriber may not use the wiring to connect to an alternative service provider until the subscriber notifies the operator whether or not the subscriber wishes to purchase the wiring. x(h) If an alternative video programming service provider connects its wiring to the home wiring before the incumbent cable operator has terminated service and has capped off its line to prevent signal leakage, the alternative video programming service provider shall be responsible for ensuring that the incumbent's wiring is properly capped off in accordance with  XN-the Commission's signal leakage requirements. See Subpart K (technical standards) of the  X9-Commission's Cable Television Service rules (47 CFR  76.605(a)(13) and 76.61076.617). x(i) Where the subscriber terminates cable service but will not be using the home wiring to receive another alternative video programming service, the cable operator shall properly cap  X-off its own line in accordance with the Commission's signal leakage requirements. See Subpart K (technical standards) of the Commission's Cable Television Service rules (47 CFR  X!- 76.605(a)(13) and 76.61076.617). x(j) Cable operators are prohibited from using any ownership interests they may have in property located on the subscriber's side of the demarcation point, such as molding or conduit, to prevent, impede, or in any way interfere with, a subscriber's right to use his or her home wiring to receive an alternative service. In addition, incumbent cable operators must take reasonable steps within their control to ensure that an alternative service provider has"'']0*((%" access to the home wiring at the demarcation point. Cable operators and alternative multichannel video programming delivery service providers are required to minimize the potential for signal leakage in accordance with the guidelines set forth in 47 CFR   X-76.605(a)(13) and 76.61076.617, theft of service and unnecessary disruption of the consumer's premises. x(k) Definitions x  XH-x(i) Normal operating conditions The term "normal operating conditions" shall have the same meaning as at 47 CFR  76.309(c)(4)(ii).