The Commission's Cable Horizontal and Vertical Ownership Limits, 11048-11050 [E8-3700]
Download as PDF
11048
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 41 / Friday, February 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Congressional authority under which
the rule operates.
In accordance with Executive Order
12866, this rule was not reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget.
List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 488
Administrative practice and
procedure, Health facilities, Medicare,
Reporting and recording requirements.
I For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services amends 42 CFR
chapter IV, part 488 as set forth below:
PART 488—SURVEY, CERTIFICATION,
AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
1. The authority citation for part 488
is revised to read as follows:
I
Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the
Social Security Act, unless otherwise noted
(42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395(hh)); Continuing
Resolution Pub. L. 110–149 H.J. Res. 72.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program No. 93.778, Medical Assistance
Program)
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital
Insurance; and Program No. 93.774,
Medicare—Supplementary Medical
Insurance Program)
Dated: January 30, 2008.
Kerry Weems,
Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare
& Medicaid Services.
Approved: February 14, 2008.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–3830 Filed 2–28–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[MM Docket No. 92–264; FCC 07–219]
The Commission’s Cable Horizontal
and Vertical Ownership Limits
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document adopts a rule
prohibiting cable operators from owning
or having an attributable interest in
cable systems serving more than 30
percent of multichannel video
programming subscribers nationwide. It
also eliminates the overbuilder
exception, which allowed cable
operators to count against its horizontal
limit only those cable subscribers served
by its ‘‘incumbent cable franchises’’ and
excluding new subscribers gained
through overbuilding ‘‘non-incumbent
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:40 Feb 28, 2008
Jkt 214001
cable systems. Elimination of the
exception prevents a cable operator near
the horizontal limit from using the
exception to exceed the 30 percent limit
and thereby reduce the open field below
the 70 percent necessary to ensure that
no single operator can, by simply
refusing to carry a video network, cause
it to fail. The revised rule balances the
need to ensure that cable operators
cannot use their dominant position in
the multichannel video programming
distribution (MVPD) market to impede
unfairly the flow of video programming
to consumers with consideration of the
efficiencies and other benefits that
might be gained through increased
ownership or control.
DATES: Effective March 31, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elvis Stumbergs, (202) 418–7878; Mania
Baghdadi, (202) 418–2330.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Federal
Communications Commission’s Fourth
Report and Order in MB Docket No. 92–
264, FCC 07–219, adopted December 18,
2007, and released February 11, 2008.
The full text of this document is
available for public inspection and
copying during regular business hours
in the FCC Reference Center, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th
Street, SW., CY–A257, Washington, DC
20554. These documents will also be
available via ECFS (https://www.fcc.gov/
cgb/ecfs). The complete text may be
purchased from the Commission’s copy
contractor, 445 12th Street, SW., Room
CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554. To
request this document in accessible
formats (computer diskettes, large print,
audio recording and Braille), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC’s
Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice) (202)
418–0432 (TTY).
Summary of the Report and Order
1. This Order was adopted pursuant
to Section 613(f)(1)(A) of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (‘‘1996
Act’’), which requires the Commission
to prescribe rules and regulations
establishing reasonable limits on the
number of cable subscribers a person is
authorized to reach through cable
systems owned by such person, or in
which such person has an attributable
interest, and to respond to the concerns
of the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit in Time
Warner Entertainment Co. v. FCC
(‘‘Time Warner II’’) that the Commission
had failed adequately to justify the 30
percent limit.
2. The court in Time Warner II held
that Section 613(f) authorizes the
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Commission to set a limit to ensure that
no single company could be in a
position single-handedly to deal a
programmer a death blow but does not
authorize the agency to regulate the
legitimate, independent editorial
choices of multiple MSOs and further
found that the Commission lacked
evidence that cable operators would
collude and that the Commission could
not simply assume that cable operators
would coordinate their behavior in an
anticompetitive manner.
3. The Report and Order establishes a
30% cable horizontal ownership limit
by relying on a modified ‘‘open field’’
approach to ensure that no single cable
operator becomes so large that a
programming network can survive only
if that operator carries it and eliminates
the overbuilder exception to the
calculation of the limit.
4. The Commission considered
comments it had received relative to
three possible approaches to use in
fashioning a horizontal ownership limit:
(1) The open field approach, which
examines whether one or more cable
operators are large enough to effectively
limit the viability of a programming
network if they denied it carriage; (2)
monopsony theory, which considers
whether a cable operator has sufficient
market power to restrict the price it pays
for programming by purchasing less of
it and thereby restrict the flow of
programming to subscribers; and (3)
bargaining theory, which examines the
negotiations between the programming
network and the cable operator in order
to determine the point at which
programmers will curtail their activities
and thereby limit the quality and
diversity of programming.
5. We determine that the open field
approach, suitably modified, represents
the best method of determining an
appropriate horizontal limit. We
determine that monopsony theory does
not apply to this market because of the
lack of a single market price in the
market for programming. Although we
find that bargaining theory is useful in
establishing the need for a limit, the
record is insufficient to derive a specific
limit using this theory.
6. The open field approach
determines whether a programming
network would have access to
alternative MVPDs of sufficient size to
allow it to successfully enter the market,
if it were denied carriage by one or more
of the largest cable operators.
7. To calculate a horizontal limit that
meets this test, we first determine the
minimum number of subscribers a
network needs in order to survive in the
marketplace and then estimate the
percentage of subscribers a network is
E:\FR\FM\29FER1.SGM
29FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 41 / Friday, February 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
likely to serve once it secures a carriage
contract. The resulting calculation
indicates that an open field of 70
percent and an ownership limit of 30
percent are necessary to ensure that no
single cable operator is able to impede
unfairly the flow of programming to
consumers.
8. The Commission eliminated the
overbuilder exception, which allowed
counting against a cable operator’s
horizontal limit only those cable
subscribers served by its ‘‘incumbent
cable franchises,’’ excluding new
subscribers gained through overbuilding
‘‘non-incumbent cable systems and
concluded that elimination of the
exception was necessary to prevent a
cable operator near the horizontal limit
to use the exception to exceed the 30
percent limit, which would have the
effect of reducing the open field below
the 70 percent that is necessary to
ensure that no single operator can, by
simply refusing to carry a video
network, cause it to fail.
9. The revised rule balances the need
to ensure that cable operators cannot
use their dominant position in the
multichannel video programming
distribution (MVPD) market to impede
unfairly the flow of video programming
to consumers with consideration of the
efficiencies and other benefits that
might be gained through increased
ownership or control.
10. The Commission further clarifies
76.503(g) of its rules which requires any
cable operator serving 20 percent or
more of nationwide MVPD subscribers
to certify prior to acquiring additional
MVPDs that no violation of the
horizontal ownership limit will occur as
a result of its acquisition, but does not
prescribe a particular form of
certification. We clarify in the Report
and Order that certifications must be
executed by an officer of the corporation
and must state that the number of
attributable subscribers served by the
applicant is reported accurately in the
certification. If this number varies from
subscriber counts the cable operator has
provided to other government agencies,
financial institutions, or third-party
publishers of industry-wide subscriber
data, the certification shall disclose and
explain the nature of such
discrepancies. The Commission will
consider specific allegations of
misrepresentation on a case-by-case
basis.
Fourth Report and Order
Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
11. This document does not contain
new or modified information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:40 Feb 28, 2008
Jkt 214001
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public
Law 104–13. In addition, therefore, it
does not contain any new or modified
‘‘information collection burden for
small business concerns with fewer than
25 employees,’’ pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4).
12. Congressional Review Act. The
Commission will send a copy of this
Fourth Report and Order in a report to
be sent to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office, pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act.
13. Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the
2005 Second FNPRM in MB Docket No.
92–264, FCC 05–96. The Commission
sought written public comment on the
proposals in the 2005 Second FNPRM
including comment on the IRFA. This
present Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, This
Fourth Report and Order
14. In this Fourth Report and Order,
we set the Commission’s cable
horizontal ownership limit to bar cable
operators from having an attributable
interest in cable systems serving more
than 30 percent of multichannel video
programming subscribers nationwide.
Our action here responds to the court’s
decision in Time Warner Entertainment
Co. v. FCC (‘‘Time Warner II’’), which
remanded the Commission’s 30 percent
limit. Our decision implements the
statutory directive that we impose a
limit designed to ensure that no single
cable operator or group of operators,
because of their size, unfairly impede
the flow of programming to consumers.
15. In establishing the 30 percent
cable horizontal ownership limit, we
rely on a modified ‘‘open field’’
approach to ensure that no single cable
operator becomes so large that a
programming network can survive only
if that largest operator carries it. To
calculate a horizontal limit that meets
this test, we first determine the
minimum number of subscribers a
network needs in order to survive in the
marketplace, and then estimate the
percentage of subscribers a network is
likely to serve once it secures a carriage
contract. The resulting calculation
indicates that an open field of 70
percent and an ownership limit of 30
percent are necessary to ensure that no
single cable operator is able to impede
unfairly the flow of programming to
consumers.
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
11049
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised
by Public Comments in Response to the
IRFA
16. None of the parties in this
proceeding filed comments on how
issues raised in the 2001 FNPRM or the
2005 Second FNPRM would impact
small entities.
C. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Rule Will Apply
17. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description of, and, where
feasible, an estimate of, the number of
small entities that may be affected by
the rules adopted herein. The RFA
generally defines the term ‘‘small
entity’’ as having the same meaning as
the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small
organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term
‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning
as the term ‘‘small business concern’’
under the Small Business Act. A ‘‘small
business concern’’ is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2)
is not dominant in its field of operation;
and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
18. Cable and Other Program
Distribution. The Census Bureau
recently updated the NAICS so that
these firms are included in the Wired
Telecommunications Carriers category
which is described as follows: ‘‘This
industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in operating and/or
providing access to transmission
facilities and infrastructure that they
own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound, and video using
wired telecommunications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on
a single technology or a combination of
technologies. Establishments in this
industry use the wired
telecommunications network facilities
that they operate to provide a variety of
services, such as wired telephony
services, including VoIP services; wired
(cable) audio and video programming
distribution; and wired broadband
Internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite
television distribution services using
facilities and infrastructure that they
operate are included in this industry.’’
The SBA has updated the small
business size standards to accord with
the revised NAICS. The size standard
for Wired Telecommunications Carriers
is all firms having an average of 1,500
or fewer employees. The Census Bureau
has not collected information on the
size distribution of firms in the revised
classification of Wired
E:\FR\FM\29FER1.SGM
29FER1
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
11050
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 41 / Friday, February 29, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Telecommunications Carriers.
Accordingly we will apply the new size
standard to Census Bureau data for 2002
regarding the size distribution of Cable
and Other Program Distribution. There
were a total of 1,191 firms in this
category that operated for the entire
year. Of this total, 1,178 firms had fewer
than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this
size standard, the majority of firms can
be considered small.
19. Cable System Operators. The
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, also contains a size standard
for small cable system operators, which
is ‘‘a cable operator that, directly or
through an affiliate, serves in the
aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all
subscribers in the United States and is
not affiliated with any entity or entities
whose gross annual revenues in the
aggregate exceed $250,000,000.’’ The
Commission has determined that an
operator serving fewer than 653,000
subscribers shall be deemed a small
operator, if its annual revenues, when
combined with the total annual
revenues of all its affiliates, do not
exceed $250 million in the aggregate.
Industry data indicate that, of 994 cable
operators nationwide, all but thirteen
are small under this size standard. We
note that the Commission neither
requests nor collects information on
whether cable system operators are
affiliated with entities whose gross
annual revenues exceed $250 million,
and therefore we are unable to estimate
more accurately the number of cable
system operators that would qualify as
small under this size standard.
20. Private Cable Operators (PCOs)
also known as Satellite Master Antenna
Television (SMATV) Systems. PCOs,
also known as SMATV systems or
private communication operators, are
video distribution facilities that use
closed transmission paths without using
any public right-of-way. PCOs acquire
video programming and distribute it via
terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban
multiple dwelling units such as
apartments and condominiums, and
commercial multiple tenant units such
as hotels and office buildings. The SBA
definition of small entities for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers includes
PCOs or SMATV systems and, thus,
small entities are defined as all such
companies with 1,500 or fewer
employees. Currently, there are
approximately 76 members in the
Independent Multi-Family
Communications Council (IMCC), the
trade association that represents PCOs.
Individual PCOs often serve
approximately 3,000–4,000 subscribers,
but the larger operations serve as many
as 15,000–55,000 subscribers. In total,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:40 Feb 28, 2008
Jkt 214001
PCOs currently serve approximately
900,000 subscribers. Because these
operators are not rate regulated, they are
not required to file employment data
with the Commission. Furthermore, we
are not aware of any privately published
employment information regarding
these operators. Based on the estimated
number of operators and the estimated
number of units served by the largest
ten PCOs, we believe that a substantial
number of PCO may qualify as small
entities.
D. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
21. The new rule imposes a 30
percent limit on the number of MVPD
subscribers nationwide that one person
or entity may serve. No new reporting,
recordkeeping or other compliance
requirements are adopted.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
22. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in developing its
approach, which may include the
following four alternatives (among
others): ‘‘(1) The establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements
under the rule for such small entities;
(3) the use of performance rather than
design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part
thereof, for such small entities.’’
23. In this Fourth Report and Order,
based on its calculations using an open
field approach, the Commission sets a
30 percent horizontal ownership limit.
This rule limits the size of large MSOs
and does not prevent small cable
operators from growing larger. We also
continue to base the limit on the
number of actual MVPD subscribers, a
figure used by cable operators when
they negotiate with and purchase
programming from video programmers.
See Id. Finally, the horizontal cap
would not change pursuant to the
Order. Accordingly, we do not find that
the Order will impose new burdens on
small cable operators.
24. The Commission considered other
alternatives, with respect to the
horizontal limit, but the Order adopted
a 30 percent horizontal ownership limit
based on evidence that this is the level
necessary to preserve programmer
viability. The Commission believes that
the decisions it adopts in the Order
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
serve our public interest goals and
comport with the evidence.
F. Report to Congress
25. The Commission will send a copy
of the Fourth Report and Order,
including this Supplemental FRFA, in a
report to be sent to Congress pursuant
to the Congressional Review Act. In
addition, the Commission will send a
copy of the Fourth Report and Order,
including this Supplemental FRFA, to
the Chief Counsel for the advocacy of
the SBA. A copy of the Fourth Report
and Order and the Supplemental FRFA
(or summaries thereof) will also be
published in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76
Multichannel video and Cable
television service.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Rule Changes
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 CFR part 76 as
follows:
I
PART 76—MULTICHANNEL VIDEO
AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE
1. The authority citations for part 76
continue to read as follows:
I
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 152(a), 154(i), 303,
307, 309, 310, 533.
2. Amend § 76.503 by revising
paragraph (a) and by removing and
reserving paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) as
follows:
I
§ 76.503
National subscriber limits.
(a) No cable operator shall serve more
than 30 percent of all multichannelvideo programming subscribers
nationwide through multichannel video
programming distributors owned by
such operator or in which such cable
operator holds an attributable interest.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E8–3700 Filed 2–28–08; 8:45 am
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\29FER1.SGM
29FER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 41 (Friday, February 29, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11048-11050]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-3700]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[MM Docket No. 92-264; FCC 07-219]
The Commission's Cable Horizontal and Vertical Ownership Limits
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document adopts a rule prohibiting cable operators from
owning or having an attributable interest in cable systems serving more
than 30 percent of multichannel video programming subscribers
nationwide. It also eliminates the overbuilder exception, which allowed
cable operators to count against its horizontal limit only those cable
subscribers served by its ``incumbent cable franchises'' and excluding
new subscribers gained through overbuilding ``non-incumbent cable
systems. Elimination of the exception prevents a cable operator near
the horizontal limit from using the exception to exceed the 30 percent
limit and thereby reduce the open field below the 70 percent necessary
to ensure that no single operator can, by simply refusing to carry a
video network, cause it to fail. The revised rule balances the need to
ensure that cable operators cannot use their dominant position in the
multichannel video programming distribution (MVPD) market to impede
unfairly the flow of video programming to consumers with consideration
of the efficiencies and other benefits that might be gained through
increased ownership or control.
DATES: Effective March 31, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elvis Stumbergs, (202) 418-7878; Mania
Baghdadi, (202) 418-2330.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Federal
Communications Commission's Fourth Report and Order in MB Docket No.
92-264, FCC 07-219, adopted December 18, 2007, and released February
11, 2008. The full text of this document is available for public
inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC
Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street,
SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be
available via ECFS (https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs). The complete text may
be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street,
SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. To request this document in
accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording
and Braille), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC's
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice)
(202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Summary of the Report and Order
1. This Order was adopted pursuant to Section 613(f)(1)(A) of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (``1996 Act''), which requires the
Commission to prescribe rules and regulations establishing reasonable
limits on the number of cable subscribers a person is authorized to
reach through cable systems owned by such person, or in which such
person has an attributable interest, and to respond to the concerns of
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
in Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. FCC (``Time Warner II'') that the
Commission had failed adequately to justify the 30 percent limit.
2. The court in Time Warner II held that Section 613(f) authorizes
the Commission to set a limit to ensure that no single company could be
in a position single-handedly to deal a programmer a death blow but
does not authorize the agency to regulate the legitimate, independent
editorial choices of multiple MSOs and further found that the
Commission lacked evidence that cable operators would collude and that
the Commission could not simply assume that cable operators would
coordinate their behavior in an anticompetitive manner.
3. The Report and Order establishes a 30% cable horizontal
ownership limit by relying on a modified ``open field'' approach to
ensure that no single cable operator becomes so large that a
programming network can survive only if that operator carries it and
eliminates the overbuilder exception to the calculation of the limit.
4. The Commission considered comments it had received relative to
three possible approaches to use in fashioning a horizontal ownership
limit: (1) The open field approach, which examines whether one or more
cable operators are large enough to effectively limit the viability of
a programming network if they denied it carriage; (2) monopsony theory,
which considers whether a cable operator has sufficient market power to
restrict the price it pays for programming by purchasing less of it and
thereby restrict the flow of programming to subscribers; and (3)
bargaining theory, which examines the negotiations between the
programming network and the cable operator in order to determine the
point at which programmers will curtail their activities and thereby
limit the quality and diversity of programming.
5. We determine that the open field approach, suitably modified,
represents the best method of determining an appropriate horizontal
limit. We determine that monopsony theory does not apply to this market
because of the lack of a single market price in the market for
programming. Although we find that bargaining theory is useful in
establishing the need for a limit, the record is insufficient to derive
a specific limit using this theory.
6. The open field approach determines whether a programming network
would have access to alternative MVPDs of sufficient size to allow it
to successfully enter the market, if it were denied carriage by one or
more of the largest cable operators.
7. To calculate a horizontal limit that meets this test, we first
determine the minimum number of subscribers a network needs in order to
survive in the marketplace and then estimate the percentage of
subscribers a network is
[[Page 11049]]
likely to serve once it secures a carriage contract. The resulting
calculation indicates that an open field of 70 percent and an ownership
limit of 30 percent are necessary to ensure that no single cable
operator is able to impede unfairly the flow of programming to
consumers.
8. The Commission eliminated the overbuilder exception, which
allowed counting against a cable operator's horizontal limit only those
cable subscribers served by its ``incumbent cable franchises,''
excluding new subscribers gained through overbuilding ``non-incumbent
cable systems and concluded that elimination of the exception was
necessary to prevent a cable operator near the horizontal limit to use
the exception to exceed the 30 percent limit, which would have the
effect of reducing the open field below the 70 percent that is
necessary to ensure that no single operator can, by simply refusing to
carry a video network, cause it to fail.
9. The revised rule balances the need to ensure that cable
operators cannot use their dominant position in the multichannel video
programming distribution (MVPD) market to impede unfairly the flow of
video programming to consumers with consideration of the efficiencies
and other benefits that might be gained through increased ownership or
control.
10. The Commission further clarifies 76.503(g) of its rules which
requires any cable operator serving 20 percent or more of nationwide
MVPD subscribers to certify prior to acquiring additional MVPDs that no
violation of the horizontal ownership limit will occur as a result of
its acquisition, but does not prescribe a particular form of
certification. We clarify in the Report and Order that certifications
must be executed by an officer of the corporation and must state that
the number of attributable subscribers served by the applicant is
reported accurately in the certification. If this number varies from
subscriber counts the cable operator has provided to other government
agencies, financial institutions, or third-party publishers of
industry-wide subscriber data, the certification shall disclose and
explain the nature of such discrepancies. The Commission will consider
specific allegations of misrepresentation on a case-by-case basis.
Fourth Report and Order
Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
11. This document does not contain new or modified information
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain
any new or modified ``information collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4).
12. Congressional Review Act. The Commission will send a copy of
this Fourth Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office, pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act.
13. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the 2005
Second FNPRM in MB Docket No. 92-264, FCC 05-96. The Commission sought
written public comment on the proposals in the 2005 Second FNPRM
including comment on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, This Fourth Report and Order
14. In this Fourth Report and Order, we set the Commission's cable
horizontal ownership limit to bar cable operators from having an
attributable interest in cable systems serving more than 30 percent of
multichannel video programming subscribers nationwide. Our action here
responds to the court's decision in Time Warner Entertainment Co. v.
FCC (``Time Warner II''), which remanded the Commission's 30 percent
limit. Our decision implements the statutory directive that we impose a
limit designed to ensure that no single cable operator or group of
operators, because of their size, unfairly impede the flow of
programming to consumers.
15. In establishing the 30 percent cable horizontal ownership
limit, we rely on a modified ``open field'' approach to ensure that no
single cable operator becomes so large that a programming network can
survive only if that largest operator carries it. To calculate a
horizontal limit that meets this test, we first determine the minimum
number of subscribers a network needs in order to survive in the
marketplace, and then estimate the percentage of subscribers a network
is likely to serve once it secures a carriage contract. The resulting
calculation indicates that an open field of 70 percent and an ownership
limit of 30 percent are necessary to ensure that no single cable
operator is able to impede unfairly the flow of programming to
consumers.
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA
16. None of the parties in this proceeding filed comments on how
issues raised in the 2001 FNPRM or the 2005 Second FNPRM would impact
small entities.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Rule Will Apply
17. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and,
where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may
be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
18. Cable and Other Program Distribution. The Census Bureau
recently updated the NAICS so that these firms are included in the
Wired Telecommunications Carriers category which is described as
follows: ``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services,
including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and video programming
distribution; and wired broadband Internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite television distribution services
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in
this industry.'' The SBA has updated the small business size standards
to accord with the revised NAICS. The size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers is all firms having an average of 1,500 or
fewer employees. The Census Bureau has not collected information on the
size distribution of firms in the revised classification of Wired
[[Page 11050]]
Telecommunications Carriers. Accordingly we will apply the new size
standard to Census Bureau data for 2002 regarding the size distribution
of Cable and Other Program Distribution. There were a total of 1,191
firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 1,178 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this
size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
19. Cable System Operators. The Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system
operators, which is ``a cable operator that, directly or through an
affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all
subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity
or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed
$250,000,000.'' The Commission has determined that an operator serving
fewer than 653,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its
annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all
its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Industry
data indicate that, of 994 cable operators nationwide, all but thirteen
are small under this size standard. We note that the Commission neither
requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are
affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250
million, and therefore we are unable to estimate more accurately the
number of cable system operators that would qualify as small under this
size standard.
20. Private Cable Operators (PCOs) also known as Satellite Master
Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems. PCOs, also known as SMATV systems
or private communication operators, are video distribution facilities
that use closed transmission paths without using any public right-of-
way. PCOs acquire video programming and distribute it via terrestrial
wiring in urban and suburban multiple dwelling units such as apartments
and condominiums, and commercial multiple tenant units such as hotels
and office buildings. The SBA definition of small entities for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers includes PCOs or SMATV systems and, thus,
small entities are defined as all such companies with 1,500 or fewer
employees. Currently, there are approximately 76 members in the
Independent Multi-Family Communications Council (IMCC), the trade
association that represents PCOs. Individual PCOs often serve
approximately 3,000-4,000 subscribers, but the larger operations serve
as many as 15,000-55,000 subscribers. In total, PCOs currently serve
approximately 900,000 subscribers. Because these operators are not rate
regulated, they are not required to file employment data with the
Commission. Furthermore, we are not aware of any privately published
employment information regarding these operators. Based on the
estimated number of operators and the estimated number of units served
by the largest ten PCOs, we believe that a substantial number of PCO
may qualify as small entities.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
21. The new rule imposes a 30 percent limit on the number of MVPD
subscribers nationwide that one person or entity may serve. No new
reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements are adopted.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
22. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in developing its approach, which
may include the following four alternatives (among others): ``(1) The
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small
entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and
(4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for
such small entities.''
23. In this Fourth Report and Order, based on its calculations
using an open field approach, the Commission sets a 30 percent
horizontal ownership limit. This rule limits the size of large MSOs and
does not prevent small cable operators from growing larger. We also
continue to base the limit on the number of actual MVPD subscribers, a
figure used by cable operators when they negotiate with and purchase
programming from video programmers. See Id. Finally, the horizontal cap
would not change pursuant to the Order. Accordingly, we do not find
that the Order will impose new burdens on small cable operators.
24. The Commission considered other alternatives, with respect to
the horizontal limit, but the Order adopted a 30 percent horizontal
ownership limit based on evidence that this is the level necessary to
preserve programmer viability. The Commission believes that the
decisions it adopts in the Order serve our public interest goals and
comport with the evidence.
F. Report to Congress
25. The Commission will send a copy of the Fourth Report and Order,
including this Supplemental FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission
will send a copy of the Fourth Report and Order, including this
Supplemental FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for the advocacy of the SBA. A
copy of the Fourth Report and Order and the Supplemental FRFA (or
summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76
Multichannel video and Cable television service.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Rule Changes
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 CFR part 76 as follows:
PART 76--MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE
0
1. The authority citations for part 76 continue to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 152(a), 154(i), 303, 307, 309, 310, 533.
0
2. Amend Sec. 76.503 by revising paragraph (a) and by removing and
reserving paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) as follows:
Sec. 76.503 National subscriber limits.
(a) No cable operator shall serve more than 30 percent of all
multichannel-video programming subscribers nationwide through
multichannel video programming distributors owned by such operator or
in which such cable operator holds an attributable interest.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-3700 Filed 2-28-08; 8:45 am
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P