WIXLIB

29/07 '94 15:31PRIMEliJATCH-- 12026320163EX PARTE OR LATE FILEDEm\T1()!1/GfNAL:.WATCH - -ECM Pg. 02103214 W. Whitfield StreetP.O. Box 730Enfield, Ne 27823-0730(919) 445-44111-800-715-0068July 29, 1994The Honorable Reed HundtChairmanFederal Communications Commission1919 M. Street, NW Room 814Washington D.C., 20554RE:Cable Competition ReportCS Docket No. 94-48Dear Chairman Hundt:The purpose of this letter is to document support of thecomments of the National Rural Communications Cooperative(NRTC) in the matter of implementation of Section 19 of theCable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of1992, Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in themarket for delivery of Video Programming, CS Docket No. 9448.PrimeWatch, Inc., is a subsidiary of a rural electric memberof NRTC and a distributor for DirecTv T.m direct broadcastsatellite (DBS) television service. We are involved inbringing satellite television to rural consumers throughoutNorth Carolina. (PrimeWatch has no relationship to PrimeStarwho is named in related correspondence and the similarity istotally coincidental.)When the Cable Act of 1992 was passed, we felt that the·playing field had been leveled n and our access to allprogramming at a fair price was a reality. But today we arestill at a competitive disadvantage since we don't havereasonable access to programming owned by Time Warner andViacom.under the new DBS technology, some of the most popularprogramming such as HBO and Showtime distribution iscontrolled by an exclusive deal between United StatesSatellite Broadcasting (USSB) and Time Warner/Viacorn. It wasour understanding that the new act prohibited suchexclusivity. In comparison, none of OirecTv's arrangementsare exclusive and ussa has full access, if desired.Our consumers are confused and rightfully so - they cannotunderstand why they can't buy everything they neea from us./ o. of Copies rec'dlIst ABCOE----A Subsidiary of Halifax Electric Membership corporatton----------

29/07 194 15:32PRIMEllJATCH-- 12026320163ECM Pg. 03/03214 W. Whitfield StreetP.O. Box 130Enfield) NC 27823-0730(919) -445-44111-800-775-0068For example if they want CNN (from us) and HaO (from them),they have to buy two packages from two sources. Quite anaggravation for the consumer!As we have started to build our DBS business, we have had alot of consumers who refuse to buy (hardware or programming)from us because we don't have access to those products. Thisis a complex business even when the playing field is level.The confusion and inconvenience being forced on rural Americais totally unnecessary.We believe very strongly that the 1992 cable Act absolutelyprohibits any exclusive arrangements that prevent anydistributor from gaining access to cable programming to serverural non-cabled areas. That is why we supported the TauzinAmendment, embodied in Section 19 of the Act.We ask the FCC to remedy these problems so that the effectivecompetition requirements of Section 19 become a reality inrural America. I strongly urge you to banish the type ofexclusionary arrangements represented by the USSB/TimeWarner/Viacom deal.Thank you for your consideration in this matter.x,Sir;'7 relI::tb.,,(t) - /Z (Richard W. ;sonAssistant General Managervia facsimile & U.S. mailcc:The Honorable Representative Eva . ClaytonThe Honorable Senator Lauch FairclothThe Honorable Senator Jesse HelmsWilliam R. Caton, SecretaryThe Honorable James H. Quell0The Honorable Andrew C. BarrettThe Honorable Susan NessThe Honorable Rachelle B. ChongASubsidiary of Halifax Electric Membership corporation

EX PARTE OR LATE FILEDTHE MONON TELEPHONE CO. INC.315 N. MARKET ST.P.O. Box 625MONON. IN. 47959DOCKET FILE COpy ORIGINAL219/253-6601July 22, 1994The Honorable Reed HundtChairmanFederal Communications Commission1919 MStreet,NW, Rm. 814Washington, D.C. 20554RE:Cable Competition ReportCS Docket No. 94-48Dear Chairman Hundt:I am writing this letter in support of the Comments of the National RuralTelecommunications Cooperative (NRTC) in the matter of Implementation ofSection 19 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and CompetitionAct of 1992, Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Marketfor the Delivery of Video Programming, CS Docket No. 94-48.As a rural telephone member of NRTC and distributor of the DIRECTVTMdirect broadcast satellite (DBS) television service, my company is directlyinvolved in bringing satellite television to rural consumers.However, despite passage of the 1992 Cable Act, my company's ability tocompete in our local marketplace is being hampered by our lack of accessto programming owned by Time Warner and Viacom.This programming, which includes some of the most popular cable networkslike HBO, Showtime, Cinnemax, The Movie Channel, MTV, Nickelodeon andothers, is available only to my principal competitor, the United StatesSatellite Broadcasting Co. (USSB), as a result of an "exclusive" contractsigned between USSB and Time Warner/Viacom.In contrast, none of the programming distribution contracts signed byDIRECTVTM are exclusive in nature, and USSB is free to obtain distributionrights for any of the channels available on DIRECTVTM.Mr. Hundt, my organization agrees with the NRTC that these exclusiveprogramming contracts run counter to the intent of the 1992 Cable Act.I believe that the Act prohibits any arrangement that prevents anydistributor from gaining access to programming to serve non-cabled ruralareas. Under the present circumstance, if one of my DIRECTVTM subscribersalso wishes to receive Time Warner/Viacom product, that subscriber mustpurchase a second subscription to the USSB service. This hinders effectivecompetition,and as a consequence keeps the price of the Time Warner/Viacom o. of Copies rec'dlIst ABCDE/----

Chairman Hundtchannels unnecessarily high.retail level.- 2-July 22, 1994It also increases consumer confusion at theNot having access to the Time Warner/Viacom services has also adverselyaffected my ability to compete against other sources for television inmy area. The local cable companies in our area offer these selectionswhen we cannot get them for our customers. It is one of the firstquestions asked, 1100 you have Showtime and HBO?"We believe very strongly that the 1992 Cable Act flatly prohibits anyexclusive arrangements that prevent any distributor from gaining accessto cable programming to serve rural non-cabled areas. That is why wesupported the Tauzin Amendment, embodied in Section 19 of the Act.We ask the FCC to remedy these problems so that the effective competitionrequirements of Section 19 become a reality in rural America. I stronglyurge you to banish the type of exclusionary arrangements represented bythe USSB/Time Warner/Viacom deal.Thank you for your consideration in this matterSincerely,THE MONON TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. Bruce T. HanwayVice PresidentBTH/pahcc:The Han. Representative Steve BuyerThe Han. Senator Richard G. LugarWilliam F. Caton, SecretaryThe Han. James H. QuelloThe Hon. Andrew C. Barrett,/The Han. Susan NessThe Hon. Rachelle B. Chong

DOCKET FliF CC)PY ORIGINALEX PARTE OR LATE FILEDThe Honorable Andrew C. BarrettCommissionerFederal Communications Commission1919 M Street, NW, Rm. 826Washington, DC 20554RE: Cable Competition ReportCS Docket No. 94-48AI/t"!2" .':"'.'".;.Dear Commissioner Barrett:I am writing this letter in support of the Comments filed by the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative(NRTC) in the matter of Implementation of Section 19 of the CableTelevision Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Annual Assessment of the Statusof Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, CS Docket No. 94-48.As a rural electric cooperative member of NRTC, South Alabama Electric Cooperative isdirectly involved in the distribution of C-band satellite television programming to over 500 ruralconsumers in Alabama.Currently, South Alabama Electric Cooperative, doing business as South Alabama Marketing, isbeing put into the situation of paying significantly more for access to popular cable andbroadcast programming than that of local cable companies comparable in size in our area. Thefact that we are forced to pay inflated rates for program access means we must in turn charge ourconsumers more for their service. This situation has already had a detrimental effect on ourability to be competitive in our local marketplace. In the past six months we have had over 20consumers to leave our service in order to receive cable. When asked the reason for switching tocable, the answer in almost every case is that cable is cheaper.In addition, most of our consumers that we serve live in remote areas that do not have access tocable and off-air television. Therefore, these people have no other choice for multichanneltelevision programming other than by satellite and are futhermore forced to pay higher rates foraccess to television than their counterparts with access to cable.Through my interpretation of the 1992 Cable Act, it was my impression that Congress hadmandated that all distributors (cable, satellite and otherwise) should be granted equal access tocable and broadcast programming services at non-discriminatory rates. If this is the case, whyare we still paying more for many programming services than those of comparably sized cablecompanies?/No. of Copies rec'd----List ABCDE

While it is true that some programmers have lowered their rates since the implementation of the1992 Cable Act, unless there is fair and equal access to all programming at rates comparable tothose paid by cable companies we will not be able to be remain competitive in offering satellitetelevision at prices that will be acceptable to our rural consumers.In that regard, South Alabama Marketing joins NRTC in calling on the FCC to review andaddress the problems that I have mentioned above and as well as ensuring that the intentions ofCongress are being upheld in accord with the 1992 Cable Act.Specifically, I hold to the belief that the FCC must prohibit abuses of the program accessprovisions of the 1992 Cable Act by rule and that any violations of such will be liable fordamages.I thank you for your attention on this matter.Si CerelY,. J/)//. JAndy Kimbro