47 U.S.C. § 552

Consumer protection and customer service

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 47 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Franchising authority enforcementA franchising authority may establish and enforce—(1) customer service requirements of the cable operator; and(2) construction schedules and other construction-related requirements, including construction-related performance requirements, of the cable operator.(b) Commission standardsThe Commission shall, within 180 days of October 5, 1992, establish standards by which cable operators may fulfill their customer service requirements. Such standards shall include, at a minimum, requirements governing—(1) cable system office hours and telephone availability;(2) installations, outages, and service calls; and(3) communications between the cable operator and the subscriber (including standards governing bills and refunds).(c) Subscriber notice

A cable operator may provide notice of service and rate changes to subscribers using any reasonable written means at its sole discretion. Notwithstanding section 543(b)(6) of this title or any other provision of this chapter, a cable operator shall not be required to provide prior notice of any rate change that is the result of a regulatory fee, franchise fee, or any other fee, tax, assessment, or charge of any kind imposed by any Federal agency, State, or franchising authority on the transaction between the operator and the subscriber.

(d) Consumer protection laws and customer service agreements(1) Consumer protection laws

Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to prohibit any State or any franchising authority from enacting or enforcing any consumer protection law, to the extent not specifically preempted by this subchapter.

(2) Customer service requirement agreements

Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude a franchising authority and a cable operator from agreeing to customer service requirements that exceed the standards established by the Commission under subsection (b). Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to prevent the establishment or enforcement of any municipal law or regulation, or any State law, concerning customer service that imposes customer service requirements that exceed the standards set by the Commission under this section, or that addresses matters not addressed by the standards set by the Commission under this section.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title VI, § 632, as added Pub. L. 98–549, § 2, Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2796; amended Pub. L. 102–385, § 8, Oct. 5, 1992, 106 Stat. 1484; Pub. L. 104–104, title III, § 301(g), Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 117.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (c), was in the original “this Act”, meaning act June 19, 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, known as the Communications Act of 1934, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 609 of this title and Tables.

Amendments

1996—Subsecs. (c), (d). Pub. L. 104–104 added subsec. (c) and redesignated former subsec. (c) as (d).

1992—Pub. L. 102–385 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows:

“(a) A franchising authority may require, as part of a franchise (including a franchise renewal, subject to section 546 of this title), provisions for enforcement of—

“(1) customer service requirements of the cable operator; and

“(2) construction schedules and other construction-related requirements of the cable operator.

“(b) A franchising authority may enforce any provision, contained in any franchise, relating to requirements described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) of this section, to the extent not inconsistent with this subchapter.

“(c) Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to prohibit any State or any franchising authority from enacting or enforcing any consumer protection law, to the extent not inconsistent with this subchapter.”

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1992 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–385 effective 60 days after Oct. 5, 1992, see section 28 of Pub. L. 102–385, set out as a note under section 325 of this title.

Effective Date

Section effective 60 days after Oct. 30, 1984, except where otherwise expressly provided, see section 9(a) of Pub. L. 98–549, set out as a note under section 521 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 29 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1985–2022 · leading case: Time Warner Ent. Co., L.P. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n United States of Am., Nynex Corp., Intervenors, 56 F.3d 151 (D.C. Cir. 1995).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Time Warner Ent. Co., L.P. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n United States of Am., Nynex Corp., Intervenors, 56 F.3d 151 (D.C. Cir. 1995). · cites it 4× “1484 ; see 47 U.S.C. § 552 (e)(1). 12 Concluding that the proscription of negative option billing is a consumer protection measure rather than rate regulation, the Commission decided that state and local regulation of negative option billing is not barred by 47 U.”

Time Warner Cable v. Doyle, 66 F.3d 867 (7th Cir. 1995). · cites it 7× “1484 , see 47 U.S.C. § 552 (c), raises an inference that the requirement that an affirmative request be received from the customer was recognized to be at least a factor in the administration of the regulatory scheme for rates.”

Kristian v. Comcast Corp., 446 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2006). · cites it 3× “1603, 8 which interpret and implement a portion of the Cable Television and Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 552 (c). The statute and regulations do not specify the type of notice required.”

Dibbern v. Adelphia Commc'ns Corp. (In Re Adelphia Commc'ns Corp.), 325 B.R. 89 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005). · cites it 4× “964 (h) and 47 U.S.C. § 552 (c), the upgrade and change of service which rendered unnecessary the converter boxes.”

Playboy Enter., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Puerto Rico, 906 F.2d 25 (1st Cir. 1990). “The Cable Act grants franchising authorities the power to enforce consumer protection provisions included in franchise agreements, and has detailed procedures for enforcing the Act's equal employment requirements.”

Storer Cable Commc'ns v. City of Montgomery, 806 F. Supp. 1518 (M.D. Ala. 1992). · cites it 2× “§ 556 (a) (act does not preempt local police powers when exercised “to the extent consistent with the express provisions of this subchapter”); 47 U.S.C.A. § 552 (a)(1) (franchise agreement may include customer service requirements).”

Housatonic Cable Vision Co. v. Dep't of Pub. Util. Control, 622 F. Supp. 798 (D. Conn. 1985). · cites it 2× “” 47 U.S.C. § 552 (a). These provisions make it clear that Congress did not take away the power of the state as franchising authority to require that a cable operator construct a given portion of its franchise area on a specified schedule.”

Broder v. Cablevision Sys. Corp., 418 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2005). “Broder suggests that 47 U.S.C. § 552 (d) and § 558, which provide that the relevant sub-chapter of Title 47 of the United States Code does not preempt certain state laws, imply that Congress's intent would not be thwarted by a GBL § 349 claim based on 47 U.”

Kentucky, Ex Rel. Gorman v. Comcast Cable of Paducah, Inc., 881 F. Supp. 285 (W.D. Ky. 1995). · cites it 2× “47 U.S.C. § 552 (e)(1) provides “[njothing in this title [ 47 U.”

Spectrum Ne., LLC v. Frey, 22 F.4th 287 (1st Cir. 2022). · cites it 4× “However, "customer service requirements" are exempt from preemption under 47 U.S.C. § 552 (d)(2). On May 11, 2020, Spectrum Northeast, LLC and Charter Communications, Inc.”

Council v. Dep't of Pub. Util. Control, 788 A.2d 29 (Conn. 2002). “, 47 U.S.C. § 552 ; as well as prohibits the conditioning of a renewed franchise upon other terms and conditions.”

Time Warner Cable v. Doyle, 847 F. Supp. 635 (W.D. Wis. 1994). · cites it 3× “However, they argue that through 47 U.S.C. § 552 (e)(1), Congress has denied the FCC the power to promulgate regulations that preempt state law unless the state law is “specifically preempted” by the language of the statute itself.”

Show all 29 citing cases →

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.