Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 110 Part 1.djvu/139

 PUBLIC LAW 104-104—FEB. 8, 1996 110 STAT. 115 (1) UPPER TIER REGULATION.— Section 623(c) (47 U.S.C. 543(c)) is amended— (A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking "subscriber, franchising authority, or other relevant State or local government entity" and inserting "franchising authority (in accordance with paragraph (3))"; (B) in paragraph (1)(C), by striking "such complaint" and inserting "the first complaint filed with the franchising authority under paragraph (3)"; and (C) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following: "(3) REVIEW OF RATE CHANGES.—The Commission shall review any complaint submitted by a franchising authority after the date of enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 concerning an increase in rates for cable programming services and issue a final order within 90 days after it receives such a complaint, unless the parties agree to extend the period for such review. A franchising authority may not file a complaint under this paragraph unless, within 90 days after such increase becomes effective it receives subscriber complaints. "(4) SUNSET OF UPPER TIER RATE REGULATION.—Th is subsection shall not apply to cable programming services provided after March 31, 1999.". (2) SUNSET OF UNIFORM RATE STRUCTURE IN MARKETS W^ITH EFFECTIVE COMPETITION.— Section 623(d) (47 U.S.C. 543(d)) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: "This subsection does not apply to (1) a cable operator with respect to the provision of cable service over its cable system in any geographic area in which the video programming services offered by the operator in that area are subject to effective competition, or (2) any video programming offered on a per channel or per program basis. Bulk discounts to multiple dwelling units shall not be subject to this subsection, except that a cable operator of a cable system that is not subject to effective competition may not charge predatory prices to a multiple dwelling unit. Upon a prima facie showing by a complainant that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the discounted price is predatory, the cable system shall have the burden of showing that its discounted price is not predatory.". (3) EFFECTIVE COMPETITION.— Section 623(1)(1) (47 U.S.C. 543(1)(1)) is amended— (A) by striking "or" at the end of subparagraph (B); (B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) and inserting "; or"; and (C) by adding at the end the following: "(D) a local exchange carrier or its affiliate (or any multichannel video programming distributor using the facilities of such carrier or its affiliate) offers video programming services directly to subscribers by any means (other than direct-to-home satellite services) in the franchise area of an unaffiliated cable operator which is providing cable service in that franchise area, but only if the video programming services so offered in that area are comparable to the video programming services provided by the unaffiliated cable operator in that area.".

�