1994_Resolutions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MOSS & BARNETT A PROFESSIONAL AS IAnON Mr. Clyde Gouldman Page 4 Sept September 23, 1994 2. A significant percentage or number of channels in the package were removed from regulated tiers; 1/ 3. The package price is so deeply discounted when compared to the price of an individual channel or the sum of the prices of the individual channels that it does not constitute a realistic set of service choice because subscribers will not have any realistic options other than subscribing to the package; 4. The channels taken from regulated tiers have not traditionally been marketed "a la carte"; 0 5. An entire regulated tier has been eliminated and turned into an "a la carte" package; 6. The subscriber must pay a significant equipment charge to purchase an individual channel in the package; 7. The subscriber must pay a "downgrade" charge (an additional charge) to purchase an individual channel in the package; 8. The "a Is carte" package includes channels that were removed from lower tiers of channels, so that subscribers to those lower tiers are required to buy one or more intermediate tiers in order to receive the same channels; 9 10 Subscribers are automatically subscribed to the "a la carte" package through, for example, such means as negative option billing; and The effected programmers object to the restructuring of their services into "a la carte" packages. The FCC states that no single factor will necessarily be dispositive in any case. Rather, the FCC will assess the totality of the circumstances, analyze whether one or more of the foregoing factors is present, and determine whether the offering intentionally or in effect, constitutes an evasion of rate regulation. STANDARD OF REVIEW On May 6, 1994 the FCC responded in a question and answer session that the FCC generally will sustain the decisions of franchising authorities as long as there is a reasonable basis for those decisions. The FCC reasoned that Congress generally allocated to franchising authorities the responsibility for reviewing basic service rates. Accordingly, a deferential standard of review is appropriate in reviewing franchising authority decisions.