Implementation of the Child Safe Viewing Act; Examination of Parental Control Technologies for Video or Audio Programming, 11334-11342 [E9-5635]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 17, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11334-11342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5635]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MB Docket No. 09-26; FCC 09-14]


Implementation of the Child Safe Viewing Act; Examination of 
Parental Control Technologies for Video or Audio Programming

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

[[Page 11335]]


ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document implements the Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007, 
S. 602, 110th Cong., adopted December 2, 2008, which directs the 
Commission to initiate a proceeding to examine ``the existence and 
availability of advanced blocking technologies that are compatible with 
various communications devices or platforms'' and can be used by 
parents to shield their children from objectionable video or audio 
programming. Although the development of new media technologies and 
platforms offers learning opportunities for children, it also poses new 
dangers. This Notice of Inquiry will examine tools currently available 
to parents and under development to help them supervise how their 
children use the media and, as directed by the Child Safe Viewing Act, 
the Commission will submit a report to Congress detailing its findings.

DATES: Comments are due on or before April 16, 2009; reply comments are 
due on or before May 18, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 09-26, 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web site: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Filers should follow the instructions provided 
on the Web site for submitting comments. In completing the transmittal 
screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service 
mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number.
     E-mail: ecfs@fcc.gov. To get filing instructions, filers 
should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words 
in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and directions 
will be sent in response.
     Mail: Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier 
or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail.
     For detailed instructions for submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this 
proceeding, contact Kim Matthews of the Media Bureau, Policy Division 
at (202) 418-2154 or at Kim.Matthews@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Inquiry (NOI), FCC 09-14, adopted on March 2, 2009, and released on 
March 2, 2009. 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/). (Documents will be 
available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) 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 Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-
0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Summary of the Notice of Inquiry

Introduction

    1. This Notice of Inquiry (NOI) implements the Child Safe Viewing 
Act of 2007, adopted December 2, 2008, which directs the Commission to 
initiate a proceeding within 90 days after the date of enactment to 
examine ``the existence and availability of advanced blocking 
technologies that are compatible with various communications devices or 
platforms.'' Congress defined ``advanced blocking technologies'' as 
``technologies that can improve or enhance the ability of a parent to 
protect his or her child from any indecent or objectionable video or 
audio programming, as determined by such parent, that is transmitted 
through the use of wire, wireless, or radio communications.'' 
Congress's intent in adopting the Act was to spur the development of 
the ``next generation of parental control technology.'' In conducting 
this proceeding, we will examine blocking technologies that may be 
appropriate across a wide variety of distribution platforms and 
devices, can filter language based upon information in closed 
captioning, can operate independently of pre-assigned ratings, and may 
be effective in enhancing a parent's ability to protect his or her 
child from indecent or objectionable programming, as determined by the 
parent. The Act directs the Commission to issue a report to Congress no 
later than August 29, 2009 detailing our findings in this proceeding.

Background and Scope of Inquiry

    2. The media environment that children encounter is becoming 
increasingly complex. In the majority of homes with children, there are 
at least three television sets, some of which receive signals over the 
air and others that are linked to cable or satellite services. The 
average TV household in the United States receives 17 broadcast TV 
stations and more than 118 television channels. In addition, many homes 
have DVD players, computers with Internet access, and a variety of 
mobile devices, such as iPods or other MP3 devices and wireless devices 
such as cell phones and smart phones, that are capable of playing both 
audio and video. Each of these media outlets has its own type of 
password and/or program blocking system, which poses a significant 
challenge for parents trying to direct or supervise their children's 
exposure to video and audio programming.
    3. Together with the growth in the kinds of media devices available 
to children there has been an increase in the amount of time children 
are exposed to media content. Children six years and younger average 
almost 2\1/2\ hours of daily exposure to media content, while children 
8 to 18 use media--including television, video players, audio media, 
video games, and computers--close to five hours each day and often use 
two or more media simultaneously. As a result of the transition to 
digital technology and the continuing technological convergence of 
media, children today can access the same source of content from a 
variety of media platforms, some of which are portable. Teens can watch 
on a computer a program that aired on television days earlier and can 
use a cell phone or other wireless device as a multimedia platform, to 
surf the Internet and download video and audio programming. The 
ubiquity of media in the lives of children and the portability of many 
media devices makes direct adult supervision of the content of the 
media to which children are exposed increasingly difficult. The goal of 
this proceeding is to examine current and new technologies that can 
assist parents, as well as other caregivers, to shield children from 
inappropriate content in this rapidly changing media environment.
    4. Section 2(a) of the Child Safe Viewing Act directs the 
Commission to initiate a notice of inquiry to examine:
    (1) The existence and availability of advanced blocking 
technologies that are

[[Page 11336]]

compatible with various communications devices or platforms;
    (2) Methods of encouraging the development, deployment, and use of 
such technology by parents that do not affect the packaging or pricing 
of a content provider's offering; and
    (3) The existence, availability, and use of parental empowerment 
tools and initiatives already in the market.
    5. Thus, the Act requires that we examine ``advanced blocking 
technologies'' currently available across a wide range of media 
platforms. Section 2(d) of the Act defines the term ``advanced blocking 
technologies'' as ``technologies that can improve or enhance the 
ability of a parent to protect his or her child from any indecent or 
objectionable video or audio programming, as determined by such parent, 
that is transmitted through the use of wire, wireless, or radio 
communication.'' We invite comment on advanced blocking technologies 
that may be appropriate across various distribution platforms, 
including wired, wireless, and Internet platforms. We also invite 
comment on the statutory definition of ``advanced blocking 
technologies.'' Whereas the Commission has defined the term 
``indecent'' in other contexts, the Act appears to leave determination 
of what is ``indecent'' or ``objectionable'' entirely to the individual 
discretion of parents. We invite comment on this interpretation and on 
any other issues regarding the statutory definition of advanced 
blocking technologies.
    6. Section 2(b) of the Act states that the Commission shall 
consider advanced blocking technologies that:
    (1) May be appropriate across a wide variety of distribution 
platforms, including wired, wireless, and Internet platforms;
    (2) May be appropriate across a wide variety of devices capable of 
transmitting or receiving video or audio programming, including 
television sets, DVD players, VCRs, cable set top boxes, satellite 
receivers, and wireless devices;
    (3) Can filter language based upon information in closed 
captioning;
    (4) Operate independently of ratings pre-assigned by the creator of 
such video or audio programming; and
    (5) May be effective in enhancing the ability of a parent to 
protect his or her child from indecent or objectionable programming, as 
determined by such parent.
    7. This language makes it clear that we are to consider blocking 
technologies appropriate for use on a variety of devices that transmit 
audio and video programming. The devices specifically identified in 
section 2(b)(2), such as television sets, DVD players, VCRs, and 
wireless devices, are capable of transmitting both audio and video 
programming. We seek comment on whether Congress intended that we 
examine blocking technologies for content that is audio only (e.g., 
music), or technologies appropriate for content that combines audio and 
video (e.g., television programs), or both. The Act does not define the 
terms ``audio'' or ``video.'' The legislative history indicates that 
Congress was focused primarily on television content. The Senate Report 
indicates that the Act stems from Congress's concern with the efficacy 
of the V-chip, given its limited use by parents, as well as a desire to 
ensure that blocking capability continues to be available to consumers 
as technology advances. The Senate Report cites section 551(e) of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and notes that that provision requires 
the Commission to `` `take such action as the Commission determines 
appropriate' to assess alternative program blocking technologies and to 
expand the V-chip requirement, if necessary, to facilitate the use of 
alternative technologies that may not rely on common ratings.'' The 
Senate Report also explains that the Act requires the Commission to 
consider technologies that may be appropriate across a variety of 
content distribution platforms ``[i]n recognition of the fact that 
television content is currently being made available over the Internet 
and over mobile devices.''(emphasis added) This language suggests that 
Congress intended that we focus on television content and the variety 
of platforms over which such content can be displayed and consider 
technologies capable of blocking inappropriate audio or video content 
transmitted as part of such programming. We invite comment on this 
view. We also note that, although section 2(b)(2) refers to ``devices 
capable of transmitting or receiving video or audio programming,'' it 
does not list radios as one of the specific devices for which blocking 
technology should be considered. Although the list is illustrative and 
not exhaustive, it appears significant that no audio-only devices are 
listed. Moreover, the Senate Report discusses television primarily and 
does not refer to radios, and radios were not discussed during the 
Senate hearing on the Act. In light of the language of the Act and the 
legislative history, we invite comment on whether we should examine 
blocking technology designed for audio content alone in this 
proceeding, or focus on technology capable of blocking objectionable 
audio conveyed together with video programming.
    8. We also invite comment on how we should interpret the term 
``video programming'' for purposes of this proceeding. Section 602(20) 
of the Communications Act states that: ``the term `video programming' 
means programming provided by, or generally considered comparable to 
programming provided by, a television broadcast station.'' Is this the 
appropriate definition to use for purposes of the Child Safe Viewing 
Act? It seems clear that ``video programming'' as that term is used in 
the Child Safe Viewing Act includes, for example, an episode of a 
television program, whether that program is provided on a television 
set over the air or via cable or satellite, or provided over the 
Internet on a computer or wireless device, or provided directly by a 
wireless carrier. We invite comment, however, on whether the term 
``video programming'' includes such content as videos provided on 
Internet video hosting sites, such as YouTube, and vodcasts of 
nontraditional video content. In addition, we seek comment on how the 
use of the term ``video programming'' in the Act limits the scope of 
this proceeding.
    9. As directed by section 2(a)(2) of the Act, we invite comment on 
``methods of encouraging the development, deployment, and use'' of 
advanced blocking technologies. What strategies should be used in this 
regard and what role should industry, trade organizations, consumer 
groups, Government and others play in this effort? Section 2(a)(2) also 
states that the Commission should examine methods of encouraging the 
development, deployment, and use of advanced blocking technologies 
``that do not affect the packaging or pricing of a content provider's 
offering.'' We invite comment on how we should interpret this language. 
How does the language in section 2(a)(2) regarding packaging and 
pricing of a content provider's offering relate to our mandate under 
the Act?
    10. In addition, section 2(a)(3) of the Act directs us to examine 
``the existence, availability, and use of parental empowerment tools 
and initiatives already in the market.'' Although the Act's focus is 
advanced blocking technologies and facilitating the next generation of 
parental control technology, the Senate Report makes clear that 
Congress was concerned about the V-chip, which is a parental 
empowerment tool already in the market, and about the low-level of V-
chip use. Accordingly, we invite comment specifically on efforts to

[[Page 11337]]

improve or expand V-chip technology and to encourage increased use of 
the V-chip by parents. We also seek comment on any other parental 
empowerment tools that are currently available to consumers, as well as 
any initiatives to encourage their availability and/or use.
    11. Finally, we invite comment on whether we should examine 
blocking technology for video game players and/or video games. Video 
game players are not included among the devices specifically identified 
in section 2(b)(2), and video games are not mentioned in the Senate 
Report and were not discussed in the Senate hearing on the Act. 
However, in light of the popularity of video games among children and 
concerns expressed regarding their content, we seek comment on whether 
we should examine methods of controlling access to video games in this 
proceeding.

Discussion and Request for Comment

A. Television

    12. The Commission has long recognized that television plays a 
significant role in the lives of American children. Children ages 8 to 
18 watch on average more than three hours of television each day, and 
more than two thirds of children in this age range have a television in 
their bedroom. Children younger than 8 watch on average 2 hours of 
television daily and more than one third have a television in their 
bedroom. Because many children watch television while they engage in 
other activities, the total amount of time that children are exposed to 
television content is even greater than statistics regarding their 
daily television use suggest. Moreover, in spite of the increase in the 
number of other types of media to which children are exposed, 
television remains the media of choice among children. Children ages 8 
to 18 devote about 50 percent of their total media time to television, 
while younger children devote about two-thirds of their media time to 
television viewing. Thus, television remains a primary medium of 
concern in terms of children's exposure to potentially objectionable 
content.
    13. In 1996, Congress amended Title III of the Communications Act, 
47 U.S.C. section 303(x), to require the incorporation of blocking 
technology into television sets. Section 551 of the Telecommunications 
Act of 1996, also known as the Parental Choice in Television 
Programming Act, directed the Commission to adopt rules that require 
certain televisions or devices capable of receiving television signals 
to ``be equipped with a feature designed to enable viewers to block 
display of all programs with a common rating.'' Id. (added by section 
551 of the 1996 Act). In 1998, the Commission adopted rules requiring 
that, starting in 2000, television sets with screens 13 inches or 
larger must be equipped with a V-chip. Section 551 of the 1996 Act also 
directed that, if the industry did not adopt voluntary rules for rating 
video programming within a year, the Commission should prescribe 
guidelines and recommended procedures for program ratings. 47 U.S.C. 
section 303(w). Following the adoption of this provision, the 
broadcast, cable, and movie industries jointly created a voluntary 
system for rating television content, known as the TV Parental 
Guidelines, which the Commission subsequently recognized as meeting the 
requirements of the 1996 Act.
    14. The Parental Guidelines contain both age- and content-based 
ratings. The age-based ratings are: TV-Y (All Children); TV-Y7 
(Directed to Older Children--age 7 or older); TV-G (General Audience); 
TV-PG (Parental Guidance Suggested); TV-14 (Parents Strongly 
Cautioned--may be unsuitable for children under 14); and TV-MA (Mature 
Audience Only--may be unsuitable for children under 17). The content-
based descriptors are: V (violence); FV (fantasy violence in older 
children's programming); S (sexual content); D (suggestive dialogue); 
and L (strong language in programming). The guidelines apply to most 
television programming, except for news and sports programming and 
advertisements.
    15. As Congress noted in adopting the Child Safe Viewing Act, 
studies conducted since the V-chip requirements and TV Parental 
Guidelines were adopted show that the V-chip is not widely used and 
many parents remain unaware of it. A study conducted from 1999-2001 by 
the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that only 8 percent of the 
families studied had the V-chip programmed and were using it. The study 
showed that many parents are not aware that they have a V-chip and 
others find that ``programming the V-chip is a multi-step and often 
confusing process.'' In two more-recent studies conducted by the Kaiser 
Family Foundation in 2004 and 2007, the first showed that only 15 
percent of parents have used the V-chip, and the second showed that 16 
percent of parents used the V-chip. The 2007 Kaiser Family Foundation 
study showed that more than half of parents who had purchased a 
television set since 2000, when the requirement that sets over 13 
inches be equipped with a V-chip went into effect, were not even aware 
that they have a V-chip.
    16. We invite comment on these studies and any improvements that 
could be made to the V-chip and the existing TV ratings system to 
increase their use and effectiveness. Are there ways in which the V-
chip could be made easier to use and program? What steps could be taken 
to increase parental awareness of the V-chip? The V-chip has been 
referred to as an ``orphaned technology,'' meaning that no entity has a 
financial incentive to promote its use. What role should industry or 
the government play in promoting the V-chip? What kinds of promotions 
would be most effective and who should bear the cost? We note that the 
broadcast networks have previously joined with the Advertising Council 
to air some public service campaigns promoting the V-chip. Was this 
campaign successful?
    17. We also invite comment on the current ratings system. The 2007 
Kaiser Family Foundation study also showed that, although more than 80 
percent of parents have heard of the TV ratings, most do not understand 
what they mean. Only 30 percent of parents with children between 2 and 
6 could name any of the ratings used for children's programs (TV-Y, TV-
7, or TV-G). Only 11 percent of parents with children in this age range 
knew that the content rating FV had anything to do with violence, and 9 
percent thought it meant ``family viewing.'' More than half of parents 
of older children that had heard of the TV ratings understood the 
meaning of the TV-14 and TV-MA age-based ratings and the ``V'' content 
descriptor, but only 36 percent of these parents understood that ``S'' 
designates a show with sexual content and only 2 percent knew that 
``D'' indicates suggestive dialogue. We invite comment on these studies 
and on ways in which awareness of the current ratings system could be 
improved.
    18. We also seek comment on the extent to which programming is 
rated, using both the age-based ratings as well as the content 
descriptors, and on whether the ratings are applied accurately. Some 
have criticized the application of the TV Parental Guidelines. In a 
2007 report, the Parents Television Council (PTC) examined all prime 
time entertainment programming on the six broadcast networks during the 
November 2006 and February 2007 sweeps period. In its report, PTC 
states that 99 percent of the programs they examined were rated either 
TV-PG or TV-14, meaning they were deemed suitable for children as young 
as 14, despite the fact that some programs

[[Page 11338]]

contained mature subject matter. According to PTC, none of the programs 
examined received the TV-MA rating for mature audiences, and forty 
percent or more of the programs lacked one or more of the appropriate 
content descriptors for suggestive dialogue (``D''), sexual (``S'') or 
violent content (``V''), or strong language (``L''). PTC argues that 
the problems in applying the TV Parental Guidelines stem from the fact 
that there are no guidelines dictating how the ratings should be 
applied and that each network rates its own programs. Other studies 
have also indicated that the ratings may not be correctly applied and 
that parents do not believe that programs are rated accurately. We seek 
comment on these views. Are broadcasters and other programming 
distributors transmitting the ratings information, as they agreed to do 
in 1997?
    19. As noted above, commercials are currently not rated using the 
TV Parental Guidelines. The Commission and others have raised concerns 
about the airing of inappropriate or adult-oriented commercials during 
programming directed to or widely viewed by children. We invite comment 
on the extent to which inappropriate commercials are aired in 
programming viewed by children and on possible solutions to this 
problem. Could commercials be rated so that the V-chip or other 
technology could be used to filter out commercials with inappropriate 
content? What role should the Government, industry, or third-parties 
play in this effort?
    20. We invite comment on blocking technology that operates based on 
ratings established by an entity other than the creator of the 
programming. Section 2(b) of the Act directs us to examine advanced 
blocking technologies that ``operate independently of ratings pre-
assigned by the creator of such video or audio programming'' and that 
enhance the ability of a parent to protect his or her child from 
indecent or objectionable programming ``as determined by such parent.'' 
Are there technologies currently available or in development that give 
parents a greater role in determining how programs should be rated? How 
could the Commission encourage the development, deployment, and use of 
such technology?
    21. Other parties have also called for improvements in the V-chip 
and the TV ratings. In a November 2008 letter, the Benton Foundation, 
Common Sense Media, and the Coalition for Independent Ratings (CFIRS, 
et al.) urged the Commission to take steps to ensure that digital 
televisions can respond to ``improved content ratings that could help 
parents better select what content enters their homes.'' CFIRS, et al. 
noted that the current ratings system does not allow parents to block 
programs that ``glamorize smoking, alcohol abuse or illegal drug use'' 
and does not allow ratings in languages other than English. CFIRS, et 
al. also noted that several new TV ratings systems have been developed 
since the present guidelines that would give viewers a choice of which 
guidelines to use. CFIRS, et al. argued that V-chip requirements should 
ensure that there is ample space for future generations to extend the 
current ratings and develop new ones. The concept of a V-chip that can 
accommodate ratings other than the existing TV Parental Guidelines is 
generally referred to as the ``open V-chip.'' The Commission has 
generally endorsed this concept by recognizing that the ability to 
modify the current rating system is beneficial and by requiring that 
television sets have the capacity to respond to changes in the TV 
ratings. In their November 2008 letter, CFIRS, et al. urged the 
Commission to take action on an issue pending in the Commission's 
Second DTV Periodic Review proceeding. Ratings systems are carried in 
Rating Region Tables (RRTs). The Advanced Television Systems Committee 
(ATSC), which maintains the list of rating region assignments, 
originally assigned 0x01 (RRT 1) to the United States. RRT 1 carries 
the current U.S. rating system (the TV Parental Guidelines and MPAA 
ratings). Prior to the Second DTV Periodic Report and Order, 69 FR 
59500, October 4, 2004, television sets were designed to convey only 
the ratings information contained in RRT 1. In the Second DTV Periodic 
Report and Order, the Commission stated that ``[w]e generally believe 
that the ability to modify the current content advisory system is 
beneficial'' and that ``to ensure the ability to modify the content 
advisory system, receivers must be able to process newer RRT version 
numbers or use new rating region codes as suggested by ATSC.'' The 
Commission also revised 47 CFR 15.120(d)(2) to, among other things, 
state that ``[d]igital television receivers shall be able to respond to 
changes in the content advisory system.'' 47 CFR 15.120(d)(2). 
Subsequent to the adoption of the Second DTV Periodic Report and Order, 
the ATSC reserved rating region code 0x05 (RRT 5) for an unspecified 
alternative U.S. rating system or systems. The Consumer Electronics 
Association (CEA) filed a petition for reconsideration of the Second 
DTV Periodic Report and Order arguing that receivers should be required 
to respond to only one additional RRT--RRT 5--in addition to RRT 1. See 
Petition for Reconsideration and/or Clarification of CEA, filed Nov. 3, 
2004, in MB Docket No. 03-15. CFIRS and other parties have filed 
oppositions to the CEA Petition, arguing that television sets should 
not be limited to only one additional RRT and that more capacity is 
needed to accommodate additional and improved ratings systems. The CEA 
Petition remains pending. The specific issue raised in the CEA Petition 
regarding RRTs will be resolved in the Second DTV Periodic Review 
proceeding. If the V-chip could accommodate multiple program ratings 
created, for example, by different ratings services, how would this 
system be implemented? How would multiple ratings be incorporated into 
programming? How would parents select a rating system for use on their 
television set and how could a V-chip offering this degree of choice be 
made easy for parents to use? Could parents decide to use more than one 
rating system on the same television set and, if so, how would parents 
move from one system to another?
    22. We invite comment on whether there are intellectual property 
concerns that could affect efforts to improve the V-chip and the 
current ratings system, as well as efforts to develop an ``open V-
chip'' and other next-generation parental control technologies. There 
is a patent on the technology that may be necessary to enable 
television manufacturers to implement an open V-chip regime whereby 
television receivers must respond to multiple Ratings Region Tables 
(RRTs) capable of containing expanded ratings systems and/or multiple 
ratings systems. Licenses for this technology are being offered through 
Tri-Vision International Limited (``Tri-Vision''), a Canadian company. 
Would the Tri-Vision patent apply in a situation in which a television 
set could respond to multiple RRTs, therefore providing capacity for 
the set's V-chip to process additional and/or more-detailed ratings 
systems? Are the licensing terms that Tri-Vision offers reasonable? 
What steps should be taken to ensure that patent issues do not 
discourage manufacturers from including blocking technology in consumer 
equipment? We also invite comment on what, if any, alternative ratings 
systems for use in conjunction with the V-chip are available or are in 
the process of being developed.
    23. Apart from the V-chip, we invite comment on any other advanced 
blocking technologies for television

[[Page 11339]]

either currently in existence or under development. We note that TiVo's 
KidZone permits parents to both block and select and/or record 
programming for their children based on a list of recommended programs 
developed by a number of independent organizations, including Common 
Sense Media, Discovery Kids, and the Parents Television Council. How 
does TiVo compare to the V-chip in terms of ease of use and 
effectiveness? Are there any data regarding actual use of KidZone by 
parents? Are other entities offering similar devices? TiVo technology 
permits parents not only to screen-out content parents find 
inappropriate, but also to select specific content based on 
recommendations from a number of different entities. Does any other 
technology offer the ability to select desired programming as well as 
screen-out objectionable programming?
    24. Pursuant to section 2(b)(3) of the Act, we also seek comment on 
advanced blocking technologies that ``can filter language based upon 
information in closed captioning.'' This language seems to focus on 
technology that uses closed captions to identify inappropriate content 
in television programs. One technology being offered now is TVGuardian, 
which operates by scanning closed captioning, muting the audio part of 
the program when offensive phrases appear, and displaying a profanity-
free version of the phrase at the bottom of the TV screen. We invite 
comment on this technology and any others that use closed captioning as 
the basis for screening programming. We note that closed captions are 
not always synchronized perfectly with the audio, and thus the captions 
may appear slightly before or after the time words are spoken as part 
of the on-screen program. We invite comment on whether and how this 
lack of synchronization affects the use of captions to block 
inappropriate content.
    25. Finally, what methods would be most effective in encouraging 
the development and use of advanced blocking technology for television? 
What role should the industry, trade associations, consumer 
organizations, and Government play in this regard? Do private entities 
have sufficient incentive to develop advanced blocking technologies for 
commercial use? What other parental empowerment tools and initiatives 
are available to help parents protect their children from programming 
that they consider objectionable or indecent?

B. Cable and Satellite

    26. We invite comment on the additional parental control options 
available to cable and satellite subscribers. What tools are available 
to parents, how easy are these tools to use, and how widely are they 
employed by parents to control what their children watch? Like the V-
chip, cable set top boxes and satellite receivers permit parents to 
block programs that contain certain ratings under the TV Parental 
Guidelines. Are these boxes easier to use than the V-chip? In addition, 
digital cable set-top boxes and satellite receivers offer the option of 
blocking entire channels or blocking individual programs. We are 
interested in any research that compares cable and satellite blocking 
devices to the V-chip, particularly in terms of ease of use and 
popularity with parents. We also invite comment on blocking technology 
for digital video recorders (DVRs). Although these devices are not 
specifically mentioned in section 2(b)(2) of the Act, DVRs are 
generally incorporated into or connected to a cable or satellite set 
top box and are an increasingly popular alternative to VCRs, which are 
specifically mentioned in section 2(b)(2). We note that TiVo, which is 
one brand of DVR, provides equipment that can be used in conjunction 
with cable and satellite service, thereby providing parents with access 
to the KidZone product described above. How do the options provided by 
TiVo and any other third-party DVR compare to the parental controls 
available in cable set top boxes and satellite receivers? In addition 
to technology currently available, are there any new technologies under 
development or on the horizon for satellite or cable? We also invite 
comment on how we could encourage the development of new technologies 
for these services, as well as their use by parents.

C. Wireless Devices

    27. Providing parents and caregivers with tools to protect children 
from content they deem inappropriate may present additional challenges 
on wireless devices, which are typically operated by children away from 
the purview of their parents. Further, the devices themselves may be 
limited in the type of software or applications that can be added 
directly by the consumer. We note that the type of content available 
over wireless devices differs from that available over broadcast 
television, cable, or satellite in that consumers can view both 
carrier-provided content through packaged offerings (similar to 
broadcast, cable, and satellite TV) and outside, third-party content 
(similar to wireline broadband Internet service). Therefore, parents 
may need to have access to multiple types of advanced blocking 
technologies or ensure that the advanced blocking technologies can 
filter out objectionable content from multiple sources.
    28. Video programming and other content available on wireless 
devices includes both content offered by the wireless provider itself, 
such as streamed versions of certain cable TV channels, music videos, 
sports, news clips, TV programs, and short TV episodes made exclusively 
for mobile phones (mobisodes), as well as third-party content obtained 
via the Internet. We seek comment on any blocking technology currently 
available for content, particularly video programming, on wireless 
devices, as well as ways of encouraging the development, deployment, 
and use of such technology. We also invite comment on the availability 
of any other parental empowerment tools related to wireless devices.
    29. The wireless industry has developed child protection measures 
both for content offered by wireless providers as well as content 
available over the Internet on wireless devices. CTIA and participating 
wireless carriers have voluntarily adopted Carrier Content 
Classification and Internet Access Control Guidelines, which provide 
for voluntary classification standards for ``Carrier Content'' (those 
materials that reside with a carrier's managed content portal or third 
party content whose charges are included on a carrier's bill). Under 
the Guidelines, Accessible Carrier Content is available to consumers of 
all ages while Restricted Carrier Content is available to those 18 or 
older or to younger consumers with specific parental authorization. 
Each carrier is responsible for its implementation of access controls, 
including age-verification mechanisms, and those carriers agreeing to 
these voluntary guidelines have pledged not to offer any Restricted 
Carrier Content until they have provided controls to allow parents to 
restrict access to this type of content. Restricted Carrier Content 
includes intense profanity, intense violence, graphic depiction of 
sexual activity or sexual behaviors, nudity, hate speech, graphic 
depiction of illegal drug use, and any activities that are restricted 
by law to those 18 years of age and older, such as gambling and 
lotteries. Several larger carriers have already announced the 
institution of guidelines to block

[[Page 11340]]

inappropriate content through parental control services. For example, 
Verizon Wireless allows parents to filter content by certain age 
categories (7+ years old, 13+ years old, 17+ years old), which includes 
content on its Mobile Web service.
    30. The wireless industry is also developing ``Internet Content 
Access Control'' technologies to enable account holders to filter and 
block access to specific Web sites. According to CTIA, all major 
carriers currently provide consumers with the ability to block all 
Internet access on their devices. In addition, wireless companies are 
researching solutions to provide controls with the ability to limit 
specific Internet content or sites on consumers' devices, which would 
be implemented on a carrier-by-carrier basis.
    31. We invite comment on these methods for controlling access to 
content available over wireless devices. Are these controls effective 
and easy to understand and activate by parents? To what extent are 
these parental control technologies used? Both the Carrier Content 
guidelines and the Internet Content Access Control guidelines filter 
content using age-based categories as defined by the industry rather 
than by consumers. How effective or accurate are these content ratings? 
How do these guidelines utilize existing standards, such as the TV 
Parental Guidelines or the MPAA rating system? Are there any 
technologies for wireless devices either currently in existence or in 
development that operate with a ratings system developed by an entity 
not associated with the content creator or the industry?
    32. In addition to the blocking technologies discussed above, we 
also seek information on any other types of blocking or filtering 
technologies currently available to consumers or other technologies 
currently in development for use on wireless devices. We note that 
technology is available on some wireless devices that permits parents 
to view the information children receive over these devices. How useful 
and widely used is this technology? We also invite comment on any other 
parental empowerment tools currently available for wireless technology. 
How do the features that make mobile, wireless devices unique (e.g., 
the size of the device/screen, the speed of broadband service on a 
mobile device, system requirements) affect how advanced blocking 
technologies operate for these devices? What are the pros and cons of 
using blocking technologies through the network versus via the handset? 
How does the type of filter (network-or handset-based) affect the user 
experience (e.g., ease of use, ability to personalize or change the 
settings on the filter, etc.)? Further, as wireless carriers move 
toward open platforms, how will blocking and filtering be affected? For 
instance, do parties expect there to be additional blocking 
applications available that are being created and marketed by third 
parties? Do third-party application providers need open platforms in 
place in order to provide these advanced blocking technologies to 
consumers, or do application providers generally provide their products 
to the carriers themselves rather than directly to end users? Do 
consumers using licensed wireless service have to purchasing or request 
free blocking or filtering from their wireless providers, or can they 
purchase or otherwise obtain freely these technologies themselves and 
load applications onto their wireless devices?
    33. We also seek comment on how to encourage the development, 
deployment, and use of blocking and filtering technologies on wireless 
devices by parents. To the extent wireless providers already have tools 
available to help parents protect children from inappropriate content, 
how are these providers educating consumers and publicizing the 
availability and convenience of such tools? How could trade 
organizations or consumer organizations publicize the development, 
deployment, and use of filtering technologies? In addition, what role 
should the Government play in ensuring that blocking and filtering 
tools are made available to parents so that children can be shielded 
from inappropriate content?

D. Non-Networked Devices

    34. Section 2(b)(2) of the Act directs the Commission to examine 
advanced blocking technologies that ``may be appropriate across a wide 
variety of devices capable of transmitting or receiving video or audio 
programming, including * * * DVD players [and] VCRs.'' As directed by 
this section of the Act, we inquire as to the existence and 
availability of blocking technologies for non-networked devices capable 
of receiving video or audio programming, particularly DVD players and 
VCRs. We note that most DVD players do not contain a tuner and 
therefore are not themselves capable of transmitting or receiving video 
or audio programming. Nonetheless, as these devices are specifically 
identified in the Act, we seek comment on blocking technologies for 
these devices.
    35. DVD players and VCRs play a major role in the lives of many 
American families--DVD players are now owned by about 84% of American 
households and VCRs, while in decline, are still owned by the great 
majority of American households. However, unlike wired, wireless, or 
Internet platforms, which directly distribute video or audio content to 
consumers, DVD players and VCRs are dependent on video discs or 
videotapes to distribute content. This situation gives parents greater 
control over DVD players and VCRs than they have over other 
distribution platforms. Specifically, parents have the ability to 
purchase or rent for their children age-appropriate content for DVD 
players and VCRs and accumulate libraries of such content to be used at 
either their, or their children's, discretion. Nonetheless, there may 
remain a legitimate concern--particularly for older children--to the 
extent that children make their own content purchases for DVD players 
and VCRs or are given inappropriate videotapes or video discs by other 
children or adults. Thus, there may be a role for blocking technologies 
for these devices. We invite comment on whether blocking technologies 
exist or are under development for DVD players and VCRs and, if so, how 
these technologies compare to blocking technologies available for other 
distribution platforms and networked devices. We also seek comment on 
whether blocking technologies exist for similar non-networked devices, 
such as digital audio players (MP3 players) and portable media players. 
If blocking technologies exist for non-networked devices, to what 
extent are they used by parents? What methods would be effective in 
encouraging the development and use of such technology? Movies on DVDs 
and video tapes are generally rated using the MPAA rating system. Is 
this rating system effective?

E. Content Available Over the Internet

    36. Section 2(b)(1) of the Act directs us to consider advanced 
blocking technologies that ``may be appropriate across a wide variety 
of distribution platforms, including * * * Internet platforms.'' Video 
and audio programming is increasingly available on the Internet. Many 
sources of video and audio programs traditionally seen on television 
are making their content available over the Internet, and third party 
online services such as Hulu permit individuals to watch television 
programs and movies that are streamed to computer screens. Other sites 
such as iTunes provide a download-on-demand service, permitting 
individuals to download TV shows and movies to their computers or from 
a computer to devices such as an iPod or iPhone. Some programs are also 
available as

[[Page 11341]]

podcasts and vodcasts which can be subscribed to, downloaded on demand, 
and played on computers, wireless devices, and MP3 (audio) or MP4 
(video) players. Some video hosting services, such as YouTube, permit 
anyone to upload videos that can be streamed to viewers, thereby 
permitting Internet content to be created by individuals not associated 
with traditional television content. In addition, peer-to-peer 
applications have likewise facilitated the distribution of content over 
the Internet. As discussed in paragraph 8, supra, we invite comment on 
what video found on the Internet should properly be considered ``video 
programming'' for purposes of this proceeding.
    37. The safety of children online has been a primary concern of 
families and Congress since the Internet was first opened to public 
use. Congress has passed several laws seeking to protect children from 
Internet content, and has requested several reports on child online 
safety. There have also been a number of non-U.S. Government studies 
that have examined child online safety. Most recently, in addition to 
this inquiry mandated by the Child Safe Viewing Act, Congress directed 
the NTIA to establish the Online Safety and Technology Working Group 
(``OSTWG'') ``to review and evaluate the status of industry efforts to 
promote online safety through educational efforts, parental control 
technology, blocking and filtering software, age-appropriate labels for 
content or other technologies or initiatives designed to promote a safe 
online environment for children.'' The OSTWG has one year from the date 
it is first convened to submit a report to Congress. We invite comment 
on how our inquiry in this proceeding should differ from the effort of 
the OSTWG. We also invite comment on what information learned in 
previous studies of the Internet, online safety, and parental control 
technologies could be applied to our mandate under the Child Safe 
Viewing Act to examine advanced blocking technologies for Internet 
video and audio programming? What have we learned since previous 
reports and how has the Internet evolved, including in ways perhaps not 
anticipated by those studies?
    38. We invite comment generally on advanced blocking technologies 
and parental empowerment tools that assist parents in controlling their 
children's access to audio and video programming on the Internet. 
Blocking technology allows an individual to receive all content except 
content that is blocked because it is on a blacklist. The list of what 
is blocked may be generated through an automated analysis, human 
review, or by user options. Individuals can select different blocking 
services which may block based on different criteria, permitting 
parents to select a service that more closely matches their concerns. 
The list of blocked content may be updated regularly from the filtering 
service or from a third party service that reviews Internet content. 
Generally blocking technology gives the owner the ability to use a 
password to turn off the filters when desired.
    39. In addition to blocking, there are a number of other kinds of 
parental empowerment tools currently available for the Internet. For 
example, many services give content creators, viewers, and third-
parties the ability to label or tag content. Creators can label their 
own content and individuals watching a video, viewing a photo, or 
reading a blog can tag that content as worthy of reading, offensive, or 
perhaps a violation of community standards. Reviews and ratings of 
content can also be provided by third-party Web sites. We invite 
comment on whether tagging or labeling content is an effective solution 
to protect children from inappropriate content. Is offensive content 
appropriately flagged, and has the industry been responsive in acting 
on flagged content? Is tagging, labeling, or flagging content by the 
Internet community itself more effective than filtering by the industry 
or a third-party based on ratings developed by the industry or a third-
party?
    40. Another strategy currently used on the Internet to block 
indecent or offensive content is the creation of child safe zones that 
``white list'' safe content and block out unwanted content. Examples of 
child safe zones include .Kids.US and Teen Second Life. Has the child 
safe zone strategy been effective, and do parents know about this 
option? Do children, particularly teenagers, simply bypass the 
restrictions of these safe zones, for example by going straight to the 
adult space instead of staying in the designated child safe space? 
Other parental control solutions currently available on the Internet 
include monitoring and recording devices that provide parents with 
information about their children's Internet use, takedown and 
acceptable use policies adopted by certain Web sites that identify and 
remove objectionable content, services offered by some Web sites that 
restrict access by children to parts of the site, and age verification. 
We invite comment on these and any other technologies available or 
under development to control children's access to Internet content, as 
well as any other parental empowerment tools currently available. Is 
there technology that would permit parents to select programming for 
their children similar to TiVo KidZone?
    41. We also invite comment on how we can encourage the development 
and use of advanced blocking technologies and other parental control 
solutions for video and audio programming available over the Internet. 
We note that parental control solutions can be implemented in a variety 
of ways in a variety of locations in the network, which offers the 
opportunity for multiple approaches to providing parental control. For 
example, blocking technology can reside in a specific application that 
an individual is using (a Web browser that blocks pop-up ads or an e-
mail application that blocks spam); in an individual's computer (a 
firewall that blocks malicious traffic); in an individual's local 
network (a network gateway that restricts access to the network); in an 
individual's Internet access service (ISP blocking ports that are used 
in worm and virus attacks); within Internet networks (networks blocking 
malicious man-in-the-middle phishing attacks); at the hosting site of 
the content or applications (hosting site takes down content which does 
not comply with the host's acceptable use policy); or at a third party 
site which is monitoring for unwanted content (an organization that 
reviews Web sites and publishes a list of Web sites that do not meet 
that organization's criteria). Which of these approaches shows promise 
for providing parents with ability to control children's access to 
objectionable content? Are end-user device based mechanisms preferable 
in terms of providing for parental control? What types of advanced 
blocking mechanisms could be built into consumer-level routers? Are any 
blocking technologies currently in use effective in giving parents the 
ability to restrict their children's access to objectionable content 
from sources other than Web sites?
    42. Finally, to what extent are children able to circumvent the 
blocking technologies adopted by parents? We note that encryption of 
content may circumvent advanced blocking mechanisms. We also note that 
children may obtain access to content deemed objectionable via Internet 
access not controlled by a child's parents, such as Wi-Fi hot spots, a 
neighbor's wireless LAN, or Internet access that is publicly available, 
such as in schools and libraries and Internet cafes. Children may also 
circumvent parental controls in the home through the use of portable 
storage devices, such as a flash drive or an iPod or recordable DVDs. 
Is there technology available to parents that

[[Page 11342]]

would prevent a child from obtaining objectionable content from outside 
the home and later viewing or listening to it on equipment in the home? 
In light of the ways in which blocking technology might be 
circumvented, what role should education play in protecting children 
from objectionable content? How can the value of the Internet as an 
educational and informational tool for children be balanced against 
efforts to ensure children's online safety?

F. Blocking Technologies Compatible With Multiple Platforms

    43. Finally, we seek general comment on whether there are blocking 
technologies currently available or in development that are capable of 
operating across multiple platforms. Because children today have access 
to multiple media platforms, content that parents may have blocked on 
one medium could potentially be accessed by children on another medium. 
For example, while parents may have activated the V-chip to block TV-14 
content on the family television set, a child may be able to access the 
same content over the Internet on the family computer or on the child's 
own laptop or wireless device. To what extent could blocking 
technologies compatible with multiple platforms provide a solution to 
parents in this situation? For example, are there technologies that 
could operate on a wireless network or wireless device as well as 
another platform (such as cable or wireline service)? Are Internet 
filters able to filter Internet content to all devices, including 
wireless devices, or are they limited to computers (which would include 
wireless modem cards used on laptops or other portable devices, but not 
wireless smartphones)? To the extent that blocking technologies are 
able to filter Internet content to both wireline and wireless devices, 
are there any technical limitations for filters operating on laptops 
using wireless laptop cards, due to the potentially slower speed of a 
wireless broadband service? Are there other issues that need to be 
resolved in order to ensure that blocking technologies can operate 
seamlessly across platforms?
Administrative Matters
    44. Ex Parte Rules. Pursuant to Sec.  1.1204(b)(1) of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1204(b)(1), this is an exempt proceeding. 
Ex parte presentations are permitted, and need not be disclosed.
    45. Comments and Reply Comments. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 
1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested 
parties may file comments on the Notice of Inquiry, MB Docket No. 09-
26, on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this 
document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking 
Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
    46. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using 
the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.Commission.gov/cgb/ecfs/ 
or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Filers 
should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting 
comments.

    For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear 
in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one 
electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number 
referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, 
filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing 
address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may 
also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing 
instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and 
include the following words in the body of the message, ``get 
form.'' A sample form and directions will be sent in response.

    47. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an 
original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or 
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    48. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in 
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to 
the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission.
     The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or 
messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing 
hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be 
held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be 
disposed of before entering the building.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
     In addition, parties must serve the following with either 
an electronic copy via e-mail or a paper copy of each pleading: (1) the 
Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 
Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, 
telephone 1-800-378-3160, or via e-mail at https://www.bcpiweb.com; and 
(2) Kim Matthews, Media Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 4-A813, 
Kim.Matthews@fcc.gov.
    49. People with Disabilities: Contact the Commission to request 
materials in accessible formats (Braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format, etc.) by e-mail at Commission504@Commission.gov or 
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 
(voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
    50. Additional Information. For additional information on this 
proceeding, contact Kim Matthews, Media Bureau, at (202) 418-2154, or 
at kim.matthews@fcc.gov.

Ordering Clause

    51. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
contained in sections 4(i), 303(g), and 403 of the Communications Act, 
47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(g), and 403, and pursuant to the Child Safe 
Viewing Act of 2007, this Notice of Inquiry is adopted. 

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-5635 Filed 3-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P