*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 37477*
 1 
 DA  04-  1010  MB-  ILR  04-  1 
 Released:  April  15,  2004 


 Mr.  Matthew  C.  Ames  Miller  &  Van  Eaton,  P.  L.  L.  C. 
 1155  Connecticut  Ave,  N.  W.  Suite  1000 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20036 
 Re:  City  of  Mentor,  Ohio 
 Dear  Mr.  Ames: 
 This  letter  is  in  response  to  a  petition  you  filed  on  February  24,  2003,  on  behalf  of  the  City  of  Mentor,  Ohio.  You  request  that  the  Commission  determine  whether  Comcast, 
 operator  of  a  cable  television  system  in  Mentor,  violated  Section  624(  d)(  3)(  A)  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934  by  releasing  certain  premium  channels,  showing 
 programming  rated  R,  NC-  17,  or  X,  to  subscribers  who  had  not  affirmatively  requested  those  channels.  The  programming  that  initially  led  to  the  filing  of  the  petition  was  said  to 
 have  been  transmitted  at  12:  30  a.  m.  on  February  16,  2004.  You  indicate  that  Comcast  did  not  notify  subscribers  of  the  free  availability  of  such  channels  as  required  by  the  Act. 


 Comcast  filed  a  response,  asserting  that  it  did  not  intentionally  offer  a  free  promotion  of  premium  services  to  its  subscribers;  rather,  the  programming  was  received 
 as  a  result  of  a  series  of  technical  errors.  Comcast  states  that  it  subsequently  advised  subscribers  of  the  situation,  and  that  if  they  wanted  to  eliminate  the  possibility  of 
 receiving  premium  services,  the  system  would  install  traps  in  their  homes.  While  admitting  its  mistakes,  Comcast  states  that  it  regrets  this  incident,  the  manner  in  which  it 
 was  handled  and  the  confusion  which  resulted,  and  that  it  has  taken  steps  both  at  a  system  and  company-  wide  level  to  ensure  that  it  does  not  reoccur.  On  February  17,  2004, 
 Comcast,  according  to  the  City,  cured  the  problem  by  installing  traps  at  the  complaining  citizen’s  residence  and,  from  that  point  onward,  he  no  longer  had  access  to  the  premium 
 channels  in  question. 
 Under  the  circumstances,  we  cannot  conclude  that  further  enforcement  action  would  be  appropriate.  Section  624(  d)(  3)(  A)  applies  to  intentional,  pre-  planned 
 promotions  of  premium  channels  where  advance  notice  is  possible.  The  record  here  reflects  that  Comcast  did  not  offer  the  premium  channels  in  question  to  subscribers  as  a 
 deliberate  free  promotional  preview.  Comcast  states  that  the  events  in  question  were  the  consequence  of  unplanned  technical  errors  and,  after  being  alerted  to  the  problem,  it 
 appears  to  have  made  good  faith  efforts  to  block  reception  of  these  services.  Comcast  also  indicates  that  it  has  recently  instituted  a  more  general  nationwide  initiative  to 
 educate  cable  subscribers  on  the  technical  means  to  block  out  even  non-  premium 
1
 2 
 programming  that  some  subscribers  may  find  objectionable.  Given  all  the  circumstances,  we  do  not  find  further  enforcement  action  to  be  warranted  at  this  time. 
 Sincerely, 
 W.  Kenneth  Ferree  Chief,  Media  Bureau 


 cc:  Zakee  Rashid,  Comcast  Cable  Communications,  Inc.  Peter  Feinberg,  Comcast  Cable  Communications,  LLC 
2