(a) A cable operator shall not charge a subscriber for any service or equipment that the subscriber has not affirmatively requested by name. A subscriber's failure to refuse a cable operator's proposal to provide such service or equipment is not an affirmative request for service or equipment. A subscriber's affirmative request for service or equipment may be made orally or in writing.
(b) The requirements of paragraph (a) of this section shall not preclude the adjustment of rates to reflect inflation, cost of living and other external costs, the addition or deletion of a specific program from a service offering, the addition or deletion of specific channels from an existing tier or service, the restructuring or division of existing tiers of service, or the adjustment of rates as a result of the addition, deletion or substitution of channels pursuant to § 76.922, provided that such changes do not constitute a fundamental change in the nature of an existing service or tier of service and are otherwise consistent with applicable regulations.
(c) State and local governments may not enforce state and local consumer protection laws that conflict with or undermine paragraph (a) or (b) of this section or any other sections of this subpart that were established pursuant to Section 3 of the 1992 Cable Act, 47 U.S.C. 543.
[59 FR 62625, Dec. 6, 1994]
Notes of Decisions
Time Warner Cable v. Doyle, 66 F.3d 867 (7th Cir. 1995).
· cites it 11× “§§ 521-559 , and that it would contravene the congressional intent to read FCC regulation 47 C.F.R. § 76.981 as authorizing Time Warner’s disputed billing practices.”
Fischer v. Time Warner Cable Inc., 61 Communications Reg. (P&F) 1685 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 3× “( 47 C.F.R. § 76.981 (c) (2014).) The trial court sustained without leave to amend the Lakers’ and Dodgers’ demurrers because the absence of a claim against Time Warner meant there could be no claim as to them.”
Morrison v. Viacom, Inc., 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1491 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997).
“§ 543 (f); 47 C.F.R. § 76.981 (1996).) However, the regulation carved out an exception in cases involving “the addition or deletion of specific channels from an existing tier of service.”
Time Warner Cable v. Doyle, 847 F. Supp. 635 (W.D. Wis. 1994).
“47 C.F.R. § 76.981 . Plaintiffs view of this regulation is that it represents a policy choice by the FCC to promote unbundling by decreasing the likelihood that subscribers will reject the newly optional á la carte offerings previously available only as part of a tier.”
Thibodeau v. Comcast Corp., 14 Pa. D. & C.5th 432 (2010).
“47 C.F.R. §76.981 (a). . Class certification hearing September 29, 2009, N.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.