Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, 19085-19091 [E9-9550]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
nutrient enrichment on freshwater,
marine, and estuarine ecosystems.
Request for Nominations
To augment expertise on the SAB
EPEC for review of EPA’s nutrient
criteria guidance, the SAB Staff Office is
seeking nominations of nationally and
internationally recognized scientists in
fields such as ecology, biology,
environmental science, risk assessment,
statistics, and zoology. We particularly
seek scientists with specialized
knowledge and expertise in the use of
empirically-derived stressor-response
relationships as the basis for developing
nutrient assessment endpoints and
criteria for the protection of aquatic life.
Process and Deadline for Submitting
Nominations: Any interested person or
organization may nominate individuals
qualified in the area of science as
described above to be considered for
appointment to augment this SAB
Committee. Candidates may also
nominate themselves. Nominations
should be submitted in electronic
format (which is preferred over hard
copy) following the instructions for
‘‘Nominating Experts to Advisory Panels
and Ad Hoc Committees Being Formed’’
provided on the SAB Web site. The form
can be accessed through the
‘‘Nomination of Experts’’ link on the
blue navigational bar on the SAB Web
site at https://www.epa.gov/sab. To
receive full consideration, nominations
should include all of the information
requested, and should be submitted in
time to arrive no later than May 18,
2009.
EPA’s SAB Staff Office requests
contact information about: the person
making the nomination; contact
information about the nominee; the
disciplinary and specific areas of
expertise of the nominee; the nominee’s
curriculum vitae; sources of recent grant
and/or contract support; and a
biographical sketch of the nominee
indicating current position, educational
background, research activities, and
recent service on other national
advisory committees or national
professional organizations.
Persons having questions about the
nomination procedures, or who are
unable to submit nominations through
the SAB Web site, should contact Dr.
Thomas Armitage, DFO, at the contact
information provided above in this
notice. Non-electronic submissions
must follow the same format and
contain the same information as the
electronic.
The SAB Staff Office will
acknowledge receipt of the nomination
and inform nominees of the Committee
for which they have been nominated.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:55 Apr 24, 2009
Jkt 217001
From the nominees identified by
respondents to this Federal Register
notice (termed the ‘‘Widecast’’) and
other sources, the SAB Staff Office will
develop a smaller subset (known as the
‘‘Short List’’) for more detailed
consideration. The Short List will be
posted on the SAB Web site at https://
www.epa.gov/sab and will include, for
each candidate, the nominee’s name and
biosketch. Public comments on the
Short List will be accepted for 21
calendar days. During this comment
period, the public will be requested to
provide information, analysis, or other
documentation on nominees that the
SAB Staff Office should consider in
evaluating candidates for the
Committee.
For the SAB, a balanced Committee is
characterized by inclusion of candidates
who possess the necessary domains of
knowledge, the relevant scientific
perspectives (which, among other
factors, can be influenced by work
history and affiliation) and the
collective breadth of experience to
adequately address the charge. Public
responses to the Short List candidates
will be considered in the selection of
the Committee, along with information
provided by candidates and information
gathered by SAB Staff independently
concerning the background of each
candidate (e.g., financial disclosure
information and computer searches to
evaluate a nominee’s prior involvement
with the topic under review). Specific
criteria to be used in evaluation of an
individual Committee member include:
(a) Scientific and/or technical expertise,
knowledge, and experience (primary
factors); (b) absence of financial
conflicts of interest; (c) scientific
credibility and impartiality; (d)
availability and willingness to serve;
and (e) ability to work constructively
and effectively in committees.
Prospective candidates will be
required to fill out the ‘‘Confidential
Financial Disclosure Form for Special
Government Employees Serving on
Federal Advisory Committees at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’’
(EPA Form 3110–48). This confidential
form allows Government officials to
determine whether there is a statutory
conflict between that person’s public
responsibilities (which includes
membership on an EPA Federal
advisory committee) and private
interests and activities, or the
appearance of a lack of impartiality, as
defined by Federal regulation. Ethics
information, including EPA Form 3110–
48, is available on the SAB Web site at
https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/
sabproduct.nsf/Web/
ethics?OpenDocument.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19085
Dated: April 20, 2009.
Anthony F. Maciorowski,
Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board
Staff Office.
[FR Doc. E9–9570 Filed 4–24–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
[MB Docket 07–269; FCC 09–32]
Annual Assessment of the Status of
Competition in the Market for the
Delivery of Video Programming
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Commission is required
to report annually to Congress on the
status of competition in markets for the
delivery of video programming. On
January 16, 2009, the Commission
released a Notice of Inquiry requesting
data as of June 30, 2007. This document
is a Supplemental Notice of Inquiry that
solicits additional information from the
public to ensure that the next report to
Congress includes information as of
June 30, 2008, and June 30, 2009. The
Commission intends to bring its
reporting up to date and submit a single
report to Congress covering 2007, 2008,
and 2009. We will use comments and
data submitted by parties in conjunction
with publicly available information and
filings submitted in relevant
Commission proceedings.
DATES: Interested parties may file
comments for data through June 30,
2008, on or before May 20, 2009, and
reply comments on or before June 20,
2009. Comments for data through June
30, 2009 information are due on or
before July 29, 2009, and reply
comments are due on or before August
28, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by MB 07–269, 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/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–
418–0432.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM
27APN1
19086
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dana Scherer, Media Bureau, (202) 418–
2127, or by e-mail at
Dana.Scherer@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s
Supplemental Notice of Inquiry
(‘‘Supplemental Notice’’) in MB Docket
No. 07–269, FCC 09–32, adopted on
April 8, 2009, and released on April 9,
2009. The complete text of this
Supplemental Notice is available for
inspection and copying during regular
business hours in the FCC’s Reference
Information Center, Room CY–A257,
Portals II, 445 Twelfth Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. The complete
text is also available on the
Commission’s Internet Site at https://
www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are
available to persons with disabilities by
contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418–
7426 or TTY (202) 418–7365. The
complete text of the Supplemental
Notice may also be purchased from the
Commission’s duplicating contractor,
Best Company and Printing, Inc., Portals
II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202)
863–2893, facsimile (202) 863–2898, or
by e-mail fcc@bcpiweb.com, or via its
Web site https://www.bcpiweb.com.
information to ensure that the 14th
Annual Report includes information as
of June 30, 2008, and June 30, 2009.
2. We seek updated information and
comment on the questions and issues
raised in the Notice. Where possible, we
request data as of June 30, 2008, and
June 30, 2009. Commenters should
provide all of the information called for
by the Notice, as well as the additional
information described in the
Supplemental Notice. As detailed in the
Notice, we ask commenters to provide
data on video programming distributors,
including: (1) Cable systems; (2) directto-home satellite services, including
direct broadcast satellite (‘‘DBS’’)
services and large home satellite dish
(‘‘C–Band’’) providers; (3) other wireline
providers, including local exchange
carriers (‘‘LECs’’), broadband service
providers (‘‘BSPs’’), open video systems
(‘‘OVS’’), and utility-operated systems;
(4) over-the-air broadcast television
stations; (5) other wireless service
providers, including commercial mobile
radio services (‘‘CMRS’’) as well as
wireless cable systems using frequencies
in the broadband radio and educational
broadband services; (6) private cable
operators (‘‘PCO’’ systems), also known
as satellite master antenna television
(‘‘SMATV’’) systems; and (7) the
Internet and Internet Protocol (‘‘IP’’)
networks.
Synopsis of Supplemental Notice of
Inquiry
1. Section 628(g) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, directs the Commission to
report to Congress annually on the
status of competition in the market for
the delivery of video programming. See
Public Law 102–385, 106 Stat 1460
(1992). The Supplemental Notice of
Inquiry (‘‘Supplemental Notice’’) solicits
additional data, comment, and analysis
for the Commission’s 14th annual report
to Congress. On January 16, 2009, the
Commission released a Notice of Inquiry
(‘‘Notice’’) seeking information,
comments, and analyses that will allow
us to evaluate the status of competition
in the video marketplace, changes in the
marketplace, prospects for new entrants,
factors that have facilitated or impeded
competition, and the effect these factors
are having on consumers’ access to
video programming. See Annual
Assessment of the Status of Competition
in the Market for the Delivery of Video
Programming, MB Docket No. 07–269,
Notice of Inquiry, 24 FCC Rcd 750
(2009), 74 FR 6875 (Feb. 11, 2009)
(‘‘Notice’’). The Notice requested data as
of June 30, 2007. By this Supplemental
Notice, we request additional
Competition in the Market for the
Delivery of Video Programming
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:55 Apr 24, 2009
Jkt 217001
Head to Head Competition
3. We seek data and comment
regarding consumers’ choices for access
to video programming and how these
choices have changed since June 30,
2007. Consumers generally have access
to over-the-air broadcast television, a
cable system, and at least two DBS
providers. In some areas, consumers
have access to video services provided
by a second cable system, often operated
by a company considered a LEC or BSP.
In addition, some consumers have
access to multichannel video
programming through an emerging
technology, such as digital broadcast
spectrum and video over the Internet.
What changes have occurred since June
30, 2007, with respect to the number
and types of video delivery services
available to consumers? To continue to
report on market trends, we seek data on
the number of subscribers and market
share for each multichannel video
programming distributor (‘‘MVPD’’), as
of June 30, 2008, and June 30, 2009.
4. Since 2007, there have been a
number of changes in the market for the
delivery of video programming to
consumers, including the expansion of
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the areas where Verizon and AT&T
compete with incumbent cable
operators and an increase in the amount
of video programming distributed over
the Internet. Thus, we seek data and
comment that will enable us to evaluate
changes in competition in the video
distribution marketplace on an annual
basis since June 30, 2007. In particular,
we request comment on incumbent
MVPDs’ responses to the entry of
competitive alternatives for the delivery
of video programming. Are incumbent
MVPDs modifying their programming
services or pricing policies in response
to the entry of competing video
providers? What changes have occurred
with respect to program offerings and
the pricing of contracts, including
introductory discounts and cancellation
penalties, as a result of competition
among MVPDs? How does customer
service impact the competitive
dynamics among MVPDs? Is customer
service a factor in subscribers’ choices
among MVPDs? What other factors
affect consumers’ decisions to subscribe
to one MVPD rather than another?
Impact of Regulatory Environment and
Barriers to Entry
5. We seek comment on the effect of
recent Commission regulatory actions
and their effect on competition. We also
seek comment on Commission actions
that have taken place since the Notice
was adopted. To what extent have these
actions affected competitive entry into
the video marketplace? We note that a
number of states have continued to
enact franchising reform laws since the
adoption of the Notice. How have these
state laws facilitated or otherwise
changed the prospects for new entrants
into the field? We request information
regarding the impact of new franchising
requirements.
Impact of Economic Environment on
Video Programming Services
6. Access to Capital and Investment:
We seek comment on the impact of the
current economic environment and its
effect on access to capital on the market
for the delivery of video programming.
How have the economy, lending
environment, and debt structures of
media companies affected broadcasters’
and MVPDs’ ability to invest in new
technologies and programming services?
What effect does the current economic
climate have on broadcasters’
operations, especially their ability to
provide local programming? Has the
nationwide lack of access to financial
resources slowed down MVPDs’ capital
investment and deployment of
programming and/or services, including
local programming? What impact will
E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM
27APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
financial difficulties have on MVPDs’,
broadcasters’, and programmers’ shortterm and long-term economic and
strategic decisions?
7. In previous reports, we have
observed that cable operators, in
particular, have invested significant
capital upgrading their systems and
adding new video and non-video
services. Are cable operators and other
MVPDs continuing to invest in system
upgrades and service improvements?
What effect has the recent economic
climate had on cable operators’ and
other MVPDs’ investments or plans to
provide additional video and non-video
services to their customers?
8. Access to Revenues and
Investment: Broadcast stations and
networks, non-broadcast networks,
MVPDs, and Internet sites all derive
revenue by selling time or space to
advertisers, but some are more
dependent on advertising revenue than
others. We seek comment on whether
shifts in advertising shares among
media represent permanent, structural
changes within the video distribution
industries or temporary changes due to
the cyclical nature of advertising and
challenging economic conditions. How
do the shifts impact program
distributors’ ability to invest in
programming and new technology?
Digital Television
9. Since June 30, 2007, broadcasters
have been transitioning from analog to
digital broadcasting formats. In
addition, MVPDs have increased the
number of broadcast stations they carry
in standard definition (‘‘SD’’) and highdefinition (‘‘HD’’) formats as well as the
number of non-broadcast networks they
carry in HD. The DTV Delay Act,
enacted on February 11, 2009, extended
the date for the nationwide digital
television (‘‘DTV’’) transition from
February 17, 2009, to June 12, 2009. See
DTV Delay Act, Pub. L. 111–4, 123 Stat.
112 (2009) (to be codified at 47 U.S.C.
309 (j)(14) and 337(e)). We seek
comment on the impact of the digital
television transition on consumers,
broadcast stations, and MVPDs. What
has been the competitive impact on
stations that have already ceased analog
broadcasting? To what extent has the
digital transition affected the number of
households that subscribe to MVPDs?
10. How has the availability of
national and local programming in HD
formats affected the competitive
dynamics between DBS, cable operators,
LECs, and other MVPDs? How do
MVPDs package and price HDTV
programming? How many HDTV sets
are sold each year and what percentage
of TV set sales do they represent? What
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:55 Apr 24, 2009
Jkt 217001
percentage of set sales has built-in
ATSC tuners and what percentage is
pure monitors? Does the availability of
HDTV programming drive sales of sets,
or vice-versa?
11. How many television stations
broadcast in HD, and what percentage of
the programming day is offered in HD?
Of those, how many are carried by
MVPDs? Are network affiliates more
likely to be carried in HD than
unaffiliated stations? With respect to
DBS operators, what percent of the
broadcast stations carried in HD in a
given market are carried pursuant to
satellite ‘‘must carry’’ (carry-one, carryall)? In what markets do MVPDs carry
all stations in HD and not just those
with major network affiliations? Does
the availability of HDTV programming
affect retransmission consent
negotiations? We seek data and
information on the non-broadcast
networks and broadcast stations that
cable operators offer in high-definition.
What effect does the carriage of HD
programming have on the bandwidth
capacity of MVPDs? Are there
differences among MVPDs in the quality
of HD programming delivered to
consumers? If so, have these differences
had an effect on competition? Is the
quality of HD programming an
important competitive factor? How
much capacity do MPVDs devote to
HDTV programming, either as video-ondemand (‘‘VOD’’) or as linear channels?
We seek information about the extent to
which broadcast stations offer multicast
streams of digital programming, the
programming broadcasters carry on the
multicast channels, and whether
MVPDs carry these channels.
Programming Issues
12. We seek updated data and
information about the programming
issues discussed in the Notice,
including additional information about
regional sports networks (‘‘RSNs’’). To
continue to report on trends in vertical
integration, we request information on
the number and ownership of nonbroadcast networks by cable operators,
other MVPDs, and broadcasters as of
June 2008 and June 2009. How does
consolidation in the MVPD and
broadcast markets impact the delivery of
video programming? We also solicit
comment on the ability of MVPDs to
acquire specific programming services
and the extent to which programming
networks are able to obtain carriage by
MVPDs. Has the entry of LECs, such as
Verizon and AT&T, and other
overbuilders in certain geographic
markets affected the ability of
programming networks to gain and/or
retain carriage on other MVPDs?
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19087
Advanced Services: Bundling, HSD,
Voice, Telephony, VOD, DVRs, and
IPGs
13. In the Notice, we sought
information on advanced service
offerings by MVPDs. We seek updated
information on the impact of the
bundling of video services with voice
and high-speed data services on
competition in the market for the
delivery of video programming services
to consumers. In addition, we seek
comment on developments since June
30, 2007, regarding video-on-demand
(‘‘VOD’’) services, digital video
recorders (‘‘DVRs’’) and services, and
the role of interactive program guides
(‘‘IPGs’’).
14. Bundling, High-Speed Data, and
Voice Services: We seek comment on
the extent to which MVPDs are
bundling voice and data services with
video services in double, triple, or
quadruple play packages and on the
impact of such offerings on competition.
We seek information about the types of
services that MVPDs intend to offer
using the 700 Megahertz frequency
band.
15. Impact of Video Services on
Broadband Deployment: We seek
information on the extent to which the
availability of video over the Internet—
through services that require high
bandwidth, such as YouTube, ITunes,
and Amazon.com—has stimulated
consumer demand for MVPDs’
deployment of ultra-high-speed
broadband service, and vice-versa. Do
MVPDs expect to offer tiered high-speed
data services (e.g., low-priced, slower
speed versus higher-priced, faster speed
service)? If so, how would such tiering
impact consumers’ access to video
programming?
16. Video-on-Demand: We seek
updated information on the use of VOD
for video programming distribution. Are
programmers using VOD in lieu of
multiplexing their programming
networks? If so, has VOD freed up
capacity for new networks, or do
MPVDs need higher capacity for VOD?
How much VOD programming is locally
originated or concerns local subject
matter? Has the shift in movie release
windows affected the viability of VOD
programming?
17. Digital Video Recorders: What
percentage of and types of programming
do viewers watch live versus on a timeshifted basis via a DVR? How has time
shifting affected the ability of
programmers to generate advertising
revenue? How have new audience
measurement metrics impacted the
ability of programming networks to
serve niche audiences? How do trends
E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM
27APN1
19088
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices
in DVR capabilities impact competition
among MVPDs? Have services
unaffiliated with MVPDs such as TiVo
experienced difficulty with obtaining
licensing agreements?
18. Interactive Program Guides: As
interactive television has developed, the
functionality of electronic programming
guides (‘‘EPGs’’) has evolved and they
are now more commonly known as
interactive program guides (‘‘IPGs’’).
What role do IPGs play in consumers’
viewing choices? How does the demise
of TV program listings in newspapers
impact the role of IPGs? Are IPGs now
the primary source for viewers to obtain
program listings? If so, how does this
impact the market for the delivery of
video programming?
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Technical Issues
19. In the Notice, we sought
information on developments as of June
30, 2007, covering technologies and
technical standards developed by
CableLabs, including middleware such
as the Open Cable Application Platform
(‘‘OCAP’’), CableCARDS, and
PacketCable. We also sought comment
on the status of navigation devices and
the impact of the Commission
integration ban separating security from
non-security functions in system access
devices. In addition, we requested
information about advances in digital
broadcasting, home networking, and
content mobility developments as well
as the impact of digital rights
management on the deployment of new
technologies. We seek similar
information on the status of these
technical issues as of June 2008 and
June 2009, including analysis of the
following developments.
Set-Top Boxes and Technology
20. Technical Standards for MVPDs’
Set-Top Boxes: In 2004, CableLabs
initiated Enhanced Television (‘‘ETV’’)
and the Enhanced Television Binary
Interchange Format (‘‘EBIF’’) to allow
set-top boxes already installed in
subscribers’ households (i.e., ‘‘legacy
boxes’’) to receive interactive software
and programming. In 2001, CableLabs
introduced OCAP to make it easier to
introduce new devices and to speed the
availability of interactive applications to
MVPDs’ systems. In January 2008, the
cable industry adopted the name
‘‘tru2way’’ to brand and market OCAP
products. EBIF and tru2way are
complementary middleware standards
to promote interactive television on
cable set-top boxes. We seek updated
information on the availability of
tru2way-compliant and EBIF-compliant
devices, the merits and drawbacks of
each standard, the number of such
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:55 Apr 24, 2009
Jkt 217001
devices in use by subscribers, and the
types of services enabled by each
middleware standard.
21. We also seek comment on the
strategic implications of the availability
of these enhanced services on the state
of competition in the market for
delivery of video programming. How
will the ability to offer enhanced
advertising and other interactive
services impact MVPDs’ ability to
compete with each other and with
broadcast television stations for
audiences and advertising revenue?
How does the availability of highlytargeted advertising affect MVPDs’ and
programmers’ ability to offer local and
niche programming for traditionally
unserved and underserved audiences?
22. CableCARDs: In 2003, the
Commission adopted rules that allow
television sets to be built with ‘‘plugand-play’’ functionality for one-way
digital services. The adopted interface
for the separation of the security
elements is commonly referred to as a
‘‘CableCARD.’’ Since our last report,
cable operators have developed a multistream CableCARD (i.e., CableCARDs
that deliver more than one channel to
subscribers at a time) and are in the
process of testing retail two-way devices
equipped with CableCARDs in certain
trial markets. We request information on
the status of these trials and the merits
of multi-stream versus single-stream
CableCARDs.
Competition Among Navigational
Devices
23. Technical Standards for
Consumer Electronics: CableLabs has
established a private negotiation process
by which individual consumer
electronics manufacturers may develop
two-way plug-and-play electronic
devices, including HDTV sets, digital
video recorders, mobile phones, and
personal computers that are compatible
with cable operators’ technology
through tru2way. We request updated
information regarding applications
using tru2way.
24. Since June 2007, several consumer
electronics manufacturers have signed
memorandums of understanding with
CableLabs to implement OCAP. Has
CableLabs’s certification process for
consumer electronic devices affected the
deployment of two-way, multi-stream
CableCARD devices? How do
applications in electronic devices,
including television sets, personal
computers, digital video recorders, and
mobile phones, compare with those
leased by MVPDs to subscribers? How
many electronic devices currently have
multi-stream CableCARDs and tru2way
middleware?
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25. Non-CableCARD Separated
Security: To promote a competitive
market for set-top boxes, the
Commission in 1998 required MVPDs to
separate security in their leased devices
and rely on the same conditional access
mechanism that consumer electronics
manufacturers use (frequently referred
to as ‘‘common reliance’’). In January
2007, the Commission reiterated that
alternatives to CableCARDs that rely
upon a commonly-used interface
comply with the rule requiring
separation of security elements from
other elements of a set-top box. The
Alliance for Telecommunications and
Industry Solutions, CableLabs, Beyond
Broadband Technology, and Widevine
Technologies are working to develop
downloadable solutions for separable
security. We seek comment on these and
any other downloadable security
solutions. Are entities that are
developing these downloadable
solutions working with device
manufacturers to ensure compatibility
with retail devices? Are they working
with one another to ensure that retail
devices will allow for national
portability as well as MVPD-to-MVPD
portability?
Other Technical Issues
26. Home Networking and Content
Mobility: Home networking allows
consumers to connect multiple devices
in the home (e.g., set-top boxes,
television sets, personal computers, and
video game consoles). We seek updated
information on the extent to which
MVPDs are utilizing or supporting home
networking technologies, such as those
proposed by the High-Definition AudioVideo Network Alliance (‘‘HANA’’) or
the Digital Living Network Alliance
(‘‘DLNA’’).
27. Content Protection and Digital
Rights Management: Digital content
protection technology seeks to prevent
the unauthorized copying and
redistribution of digital media. We
request an update on what content
protection technologies are available or
being developed to protect digital
media. How have copyright and digital
rights laws, regulations, or the lack
thereof impacted the competitiveness of
MVPDs and their access to
programming?
Cable Systems
28. Migration from Analog to Digital
Tiers: We request updated information
on MVPDs, including changes in the
manner in which video and non-video
services are being packaged and priced.
One recent trend is the migration of
cable programming from analog tiers to
digital tiers, or the elimination of analog
E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM
27APN1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices
service in favor of all-digital systems.
What percentage of cable subscribers
subscribe to analog versus digital
packages? What types of programming
have been moved from analog tiers to
digital tiers? How many cable operators
have converted their systems to alldigital, and what percentage of each
operator’s systems do they represent?
Does one system’s decision to go alldigital drive competing systems in the
same market to follow suit? What are
the costs and benefits of digital
migration to subscribers? When a
system goes all digital, are basic tier
subscribers required to lease or
purchase set-top boxes? How does
migration to an all-digital system affect
the price of basic cable service? What
effect does the offering of advanced
services, such as DVR, IPG, and VOD,
have on cable operators’ decisions
regarding increasing the movement of
programming from analog to digital tiers
or going all-digital?
29. Switched Digital Video:
Traditionally, cable operators have
delivered all programming feeds at the
same time to all subscribers. Switched
digital video is a method of delivering
programming to subscribers only when
those subscribers actively request that
programming. What is the role of
switched digital video in cable
operators’ operating strategies? How has
the deployment of switched digital
video impacted MVPDs’ capacity and
offering of programming services? To
what extent has the deployment of
switched digital video been successful?
What efficiencies have cable operators
realized through the deployment of
switched digital and what challenges do
they face? How does the deployment of
switched digital video affect cable
operators’ distribution of programming
networks? What are the costs and
benefits of switched digital video to
consumers?
30. Carriage of Broadcast Stations in
Standard and High Definition Digital
Formats: In September 2007, the
Commission adopted a Third Report
and Order and Third Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking requiring cable
operators to either (1) deliver must-carry
stations’ broadcast digital signals in
digital format to all digital cable
subscribers and convert the signals to
analog format at their headends for all
subscribers or (2) for all-digital systems,
deliver the must-carry stations’
broadcast signals in digital format to all
subscribers in the systems. See Carriage
of Digital Broadcast Signals:
Amendment to Part 76 of the
Commission Rules, CS Docket No. 98–
120, Third Report and Order and Third
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:55 Apr 24, 2009
Jkt 217001
FCC Rcd 21064 (2007). Small cable
systems with 552 MHz or less
bandwidth that lack the capacity to
carry the additional digital must-carry
stations may request a waiver of the
carriage requirement. We seek comment
on the extent to which systems downconvert DTV signals to analog to make
them available to subscribers without
the need for a set-top box. In September
2008, the Commission released a Fourth
Report and Order, which, in part,
exempts certain cable systems from the
material degradation requirement to
carry broadcast signals in HD format.
See Carriage of Digital Broadcast
Signals: Amendment to Part 76 of the
Commission Rules, CS Docket No. 98–
120, Fourth Report and Order, 23 FCC
Rcd 13618 (2008). The systems must
either 1) have 2,500 or fewer subscribers
and be unaffiliated with a large cable
operator, or 2) have an activated
channel capacity of 552 MHz or less.
How many systems with 552 MHz or
less carry HDTV networks or stations? Is
the lack of HD programming a
competitive disadvantage?
Direct-To-Home Satellite Services
31. Direct-to-home satellite services
include DBS and C-band. In addition to
information requested in the Notice, we
are interested in how the digital
transition has affected competition
between DBS and cable operators in
markets where DBS does not offer localinto-local broadcast television service.
How has the availability or lack of localinto-local service impacted consumers’
readiness for the digital television
transition? Do households drop DBS
subscriptions in order to receive DTV
programming from another MVPD? We
also request information regarding how
broadcast stations deliver their signals
to DBS operators, e.g., over-the-air
reception or alternative feeds, and we
seek comment on the extent to which
multiple DBS operators share local
reception facilities. The number of
subscribers to C-band video service has
been declining in recent years. Does this
trend continue? If so, is C-band still a
viable option for multichannel video
programming service?
Other Wireline Service Providers
32. The Notice solicited comments
regarding other wireline video
programming distributors, including
local exchange carriers, broadband
service providers, open video system
operators, and electric and gas utilities.
We seek information on these MVPD
services for 2008 and 2009 as well as the
following additional information.
33. Local Exchange Carriers: In the
13th Annual Report, we observed that
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19089
LECs, most notably Verizon and AT&T,
have expanded the areas where they
provide facilities-based video services.
What factors determine whether these
companies or other LECs enter the video
marketplace? Have the Commission’s
revised franchising rules or state
franchising laws had an impact on LEC
video services? In addition, several
LECs offer video services through
marketing agreements with DBS
operators. We request updated
information regarding these agreements
as well as the bundles of services that
LECs offer in competition with cable
operators. Do LECs compete on price? If
not, why not? Do they offer
differentiated tiers? How does the
amount of HD, VOD, and other
programming offered by LECs compare
with similar offerings from other
MVPDs? Do LECs provide local
programming? Do they offer any
programming comparable to public,
educational, and government access
(‘‘PEG’’) programming? How does the
quality of LECs’ customer service
compare with that of other MVPDs?
What percentage of new LEC customers
come from other MVPDs versus
households relying exclusively on overthe-air reception? We seek comments on
what, if any, unique competitive
advantages LECs have in comparison
with other MVPDs.
Broadcast Television Service
34. Over-the-Air-Only Households:
Consumers who do not subscribe to an
MVPD service typically rely on overthe-air (‘‘OTA’’) reception of local
broadcast television signals. MVPD
subscribers may rely on OTA reception
on some of their television sets. How
many television households rely
exclusively on OTA reception, and how
many MVPD subscribers rely on OTA
reception for at least one television set?
Of those television sets, how many are
analog, digital-ready, or connected to a
digital converter box? Some MVPDs are
offering introductory discounts to attract
new subscribers from OTA-only
households. Is the digital transition
driving such households to subscribe to
MVPDs? On the other hand, is the
digital transition causing MVPD
subscribers to drop their service and
rely on free, OTA television? Are
broadcast-only households replacing
analog sets with digital sets or HDTV
sets? Does the need for consumers to
upgrade broadcast antennas to receive
DTV over-the-air in some situations
affect consumers’ decision to switch
from OTA reception to MVPD
subscribership?
35. Multicasting: Multicasting is the
process by which multiple streams of
E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM
27APN1
19090
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
digital television programming are
transmitted at the same time over a
single 6 MHz broadcast channel. We
seek information on the types of
services and content that broadcasters
are transmitting using multicasting. In
addition, we seek information on
whether multicasting is limited to large
markets, or if stations in small and
medium-sized markets are also using
their multicasting capabilities. What
types of multicast programming are
available? How much multicast
programming is locally produced or
locally focused? To what extent is the
provision of multicast service
dependent upon its carriage by cable
and other MVPD operators? In how
many markets are cable operators and
other MVPDs carrying broadcasters’
multicast programming, and which
markets are they doing so? How has the
financial climate and postponement of
the digital television transition
impacted broadcasters’ roll-out of
multicast networks?
36. Must-Carry and Retransmission
Consent: Every three years, broadcast
stations elect whether they want to be
carried on cable systems under must
carry or retransmission consent.
Similarly, broadcast stations may elect
whether to be carried under must carry
or retransmission consent in markets
where DBS operators offer local-intolocal service. The most recent election
was on October 1, 2008, for carriage
agreements beginning on January 1,
2009. What types of local stations
receive compensation pursuant to
retransmission consent versus carriage
pursuant to must carry? What types of
compensation do broadcasters receive
from MVPDs in return for carriage? Are
broadcasters compensated in cash or
through in-kind arrangements? To what
extent do broadcast station owners tie
carriage of affiliated non-broadcast
networks to carriage of their broadcast
signals?
Other Wireless Service Providers
37. Commercial Mobile Radio Service
Providers: As discussed in the Notice,
major commercial mobile radio service
(‘‘CMRS’’) providers have begun offering
video services to users of cell phones
and other mobile services. We request
updated information on the availability
and deployment of mobile video
services offered by CMRS providers as
of June 30, 2008, and June 30, 2009.
Specifically, how many mobile
telephone users have access to, and
subscribe to, such services? Has the
availability of such services increased
and how have subscription rates
changed over time? To what extent are
CMRS providers offering mobile video
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:55 Apr 24, 2009
Jkt 217001
services over their own spectrum
licenses and networks, and to what
extent are they partnering with third
parties? We request information
regarding programming agreements
between video content providers and
CMRS providers. Do current trends in
mobile video suggest that we should
classify CMRS providers that offer video
programming as MVPDs?
38. We also request updated
information on video distribution to
wireless devices—including iPods,
personal digital assistants, and portable
media players—that are not connected
to CMRS networks. To what extent do
consumers use wireless connections,
personal computer sideloading, and
other methods to receive video content
on wireless devices? How have the
distribution methods and technologies
changed since June 30, 2007? We seek
updated information on how video
programmers are re-purposing
traditional broadcast and non-broadcast
programming for viewing on these
devices, and the extent to which
programmers are creating content
specifically for these new devices.
39. What types of programming do
broadcasters intend to provide via
mobile digital television? Do they plan
to include local news and emergency
broadcasting? What are the advantages
of mobile video provided by
broadcasters versus other providers? We
also request information on whether and
how video programmers will use new,
IP-based wireless network
technologies—such as Worldwide
Interoperability for Microwave Access
(‘‘WiMAX’’) and Long Term Evolution
(‘‘LTE’’)—to deliver mobile video
programming. We seek comment on the
extent to which video services offered
using these technologies will compete
with those offered by traditional video
providers.
40. Wireless Cable Systems: We seek
updated information on existing
wireless cable systems and the video
and non-video services they offer. How
many wireless cable systems remain,
and how many customers do they serve?
Do licensees in these services remain
viable competitors in the market for the
delivery of video programming?
41. Private Cable Operators: Private
cable operator (‘‘PCO’’) systems, also
known as satellite master antenna
(‘‘SMATV’’) systems, are video
distribution facilities that do not use
any public rights-of-way. In the 13th
Annual Report, we reported that PCOs
serve a decreasing number of
subscribers, representing less than one
percent of all MVPD subscribers as of
June 2006. Has this trend continued into
2008 and 2009? Do PCOs remain viable
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
competitors in the market for the
delivery of video programming?
Web-Based Internet Video
42. Programming Network Delivery
via Web Sites: Programmers and content
creators are offering an increasing
amount of video programming over the
Internet. How is the availability of
traditional broadcast programming on
other outlets affecting the role of
broadcast stations and MVPDs as
distributors? How do licensing and
copyright issues impact competition for
the distribution of video programming
over the Internet? Has the availability of
programming online led to consumers
‘‘cord cutting’’ (i.e., cancelling MVPD
service subscriptions) or no longer
viewing OTA broadcast television?
43. Direct Streaming of Programming
Networks to Consumer Electronics: In
early 2009, consumer electronics
manufacturers announced that they plan
to increase the number of television sets
and DVD players that incorporate
streaming technology to enable viewers
to watch IP-delivered video. How does
the ability to stream video programming
over computers and television sets
impact the demand for MVPD service?
We seek information about
developments relating to the
distribution of Web-based Internet
video.
A. Foreign Markets
44. In previous reports, we have
examined foreign markets because
developments in other countries can
lend insight into the nature of
competition in the United States and the
relative efficiency of market structures
and regulations within our nation. We
again seek information and case studies
on video delivery in foreign markets,
including the transition to digital
television, the emergence of IPTV as a
competitor in the MVPD market, and the
implications of both these trends for
market structure and consumer choices.
We also seek information regarding
recent developments in pricing and
packaging of programming, including a
la carte offerings and the degree to
which consumers can choose channels
in bundles or singly; technological
developments; developments in VoIP;
and broadcast, cable, and satellite
competition. We also ask commenters to
provide comparisons of the video
programming choices available to
consumers between the United States
and other countries. In addition, we
seek comment about the impact of
global technical standards on the
development of video programming
services and technology within the
United States.
E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM
27APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 79 / Monday, April 27, 2009 / Notices
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
II. Procedural Matters
45. Authority. This Supplemental
Notice is issued pursuant to authority
contained in Sections 4(i), 4(j), 403, and
628(g) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i),
154(j), 403, and 548(g).
46. Ex Parte Rules. There are no ex
parte or disclosure requirements
applicable to this proceeding pursuant
to 47 CFR 1.1204(b) (1).
47. Comment Information. Pursuant
to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415,
1.419, interested parties may file
comments on the Supplemental Notice
of Inquiry, MB Docket No. 07–269, for
2008 information, on or before May 20,
2009, and reply comments on or before
June 20, 2009. For 2009 information,
interested parties may file comments on
or before July 29, 2009, and reply
comments on or before August 28, 2009.
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 (1998).
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.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.
Æ 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.
• 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.
• Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:55 Apr 24, 2009
Jkt 217001
(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.
Æ The Commission’s contractor will
receive hand-delivered or messengerdelivered 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.
Æ 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.
Æ 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;
(2) Marcia Glauberman, Media Bureau,
445 12th Street, SW., Room 2–C264,
Marcia.Glauberman@fcc.gov; and (3)
Dana Scherer, Media Bureau, 445 12th
Street, SW., Room 2–C222,
Dana.Scherer@fcc.gov.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9–9550 Filed 4–24–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
[MB Docket 07–269; DA 09–794]
Annual Assessment of the Status of
Competition in the Market for the
Delivery of Video Programming
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Commission is required
to report annually to Congress on the
status of competition in markets for the
delivery of video programming. This
document further extends the deadlines
for filing comments and reply comments
in response to the notice of inquiry for
the 14th Annual Report to Congress,
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19091
which requested data as of June 2007.
The Commission needs to bring its
reporting up to date and will issue a
single report for 2007, 2008, and 2009.
The Commission previously announced
that it would establish concurrent
comment and reply deadlines for 2007
and 2008 data. On April 8, 2009 the
Commission adopted a supplemental
notice of inquiry to request information
for 2008 and 2009. The supplemental
notice established May 20, 2009 as the
comment deadline for the filing of 2008
information, and June 20, 2009 as the
reply comment deadline. This
document adopts comment and reply
comment deadlines for 2007
information that are concurrent with
those filing dates. A single set of
deadlines for 2007 and 2008 will avoid
duplication of effort by commenters and
streamline Commission review of the
submitted information.
DATES: Interested parties may file
comments on or before May 20, 2009,
and reply comments on or before June
20, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by MB 07–269, 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/efcs/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202)
418–0432.
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:
Dana Scherer, Media Bureau at (202)
418–2127.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Media Bureau’s Order in
MB Docket No. 07–269, DA 09–794,
adopted and released on April 8, 2009.
The complete text of this Order is
available for inspection and copying
during regular business hours in the
FCC’s Reference Information Center,
Room CY–A257, Portals II, 445 Twelfth
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The
complete text is also available on the
Commission’s Internet site at https://
www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are
available to persons with disabilities by
contacting the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM
27APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 79 (Monday, April 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19085-19091]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9550]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[MB Docket 07-269; FCC 09-32]
Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for
the Delivery of Video Programming
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission is required to report annually to Congress on
the status of competition in markets for the delivery of video
programming. On January 16, 2009, the Commission released a Notice of
Inquiry requesting data as of June 30, 2007. This document is a
Supplemental Notice of Inquiry that solicits additional information
from the public to ensure that the next report to Congress includes
information as of June 30, 2008, and June 30, 2009. The Commission
intends to bring its reporting up to date and submit a single report to
Congress covering 2007, 2008, and 2009. We will use comments and data
submitted by parties in conjunction with publicly available information
and filings submitted in relevant Commission proceedings.
DATES: Interested parties may file comments for data through June 30,
2008, on or before May 20, 2009, and reply comments on or before June
20, 2009. Comments for data through June 30, 2009 information are due
on or before July 29, 2009, and reply comments are due on or before
August 28, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB 07-269, 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/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
[[Page 19086]]
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana Scherer, Media Bureau, (202) 418-
2127, or by e-mail at Dana.Scherer@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Supplemental Notice of Inquiry (``Supplemental Notice'') in MB Docket
No. 07-269, FCC 09-32, adopted on April 8, 2009, and released on April
9, 2009. The complete text of this Supplemental Notice is available for
inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC's
Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, Portals II, 445 Twelfth
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text is also available
on the Commission's Internet Site at https://www.fcc.gov. Alternative
formats are available to persons with disabilities by contacting Brian
Millin at (202) 418-7426 or TTY (202) 418-7365. The complete text of
the Supplemental Notice may also be purchased from the Commission's
duplicating contractor, Best Company and Printing, Inc., Portals II,
445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone
(202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or by e-mail fcc@bcpiweb.com,
or via its Web site https://www.bcpiweb.com.
Synopsis of Supplemental Notice of Inquiry
1. Section 628(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
directs the Commission to report to Congress annually on the status of
competition in the market for the delivery of video programming. See
Public Law 102-385, 106 Stat 1460 (1992). The Supplemental Notice of
Inquiry (``Supplemental Notice'') solicits additional data, comment,
and analysis for the Commission's 14th annual report to Congress. On
January 16, 2009, the Commission released a Notice of Inquiry
(``Notice'') seeking information, comments, and analyses that will
allow us to evaluate the status of competition in the video
marketplace, changes in the marketplace, prospects for new entrants,
factors that have facilitated or impeded competition, and the effect
these factors are having on consumers' access to video programming. See
Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the
Delivery of Video Programming, MB Docket No. 07-269, Notice of Inquiry,
24 FCC Rcd 750 (2009), 74 FR 6875 (Feb. 11, 2009) (``Notice''). The
Notice requested data as of June 30, 2007. By this Supplemental Notice,
we request additional information to ensure that the 14th Annual Report
includes information as of June 30, 2008, and June 30, 2009.
2. We seek updated information and comment on the questions and
issues raised in the Notice. Where possible, we request data as of June
30, 2008, and June 30, 2009. Commenters should provide all of the
information called for by the Notice, as well as the additional
information described in the Supplemental Notice. As detailed in the
Notice, we ask commenters to provide data on video programming
distributors, including: (1) Cable systems; (2) direct-to-home
satellite services, including direct broadcast satellite (``DBS'')
services and large home satellite dish (``C-Band'') providers; (3)
other wireline providers, including local exchange carriers (``LECs''),
broadband service providers (``BSPs''), open video systems (``OVS''),
and utility-operated systems; (4) over-the-air broadcast television
stations; (5) other wireless service providers, including commercial
mobile radio services (``CMRS'') as well as wireless cable systems
using frequencies in the broadband radio and educational broadband
services; (6) private cable operators (``PCO'' systems), also known as
satellite master antenna television (``SMATV'') systems; and (7) the
Internet and Internet Protocol (``IP'') networks.
Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming
Head to Head Competition
3. We seek data and comment regarding consumers' choices for access
to video programming and how these choices have changed since June 30,
2007. Consumers generally have access to over-the-air broadcast
television, a cable system, and at least two DBS providers. In some
areas, consumers have access to video services provided by a second
cable system, often operated by a company considered a LEC or BSP. In
addition, some consumers have access to multichannel video programming
through an emerging technology, such as digital broadcast spectrum and
video over the Internet. What changes have occurred since June 30,
2007, with respect to the number and types of video delivery services
available to consumers? To continue to report on market trends, we seek
data on the number of subscribers and market share for each
multichannel video programming distributor (``MVPD''), as of June 30,
2008, and June 30, 2009.
4. Since 2007, there have been a number of changes in the market
for the delivery of video programming to consumers, including the
expansion of the areas where Verizon and AT&T compete with incumbent
cable operators and an increase in the amount of video programming
distributed over the Internet. Thus, we seek data and comment that will
enable us to evaluate changes in competition in the video distribution
marketplace on an annual basis since June 30, 2007. In particular, we
request comment on incumbent MVPDs' responses to the entry of
competitive alternatives for the delivery of video programming. Are
incumbent MVPDs modifying their programming services or pricing
policies in response to the entry of competing video providers? What
changes have occurred with respect to program offerings and the pricing
of contracts, including introductory discounts and cancellation
penalties, as a result of competition among MVPDs? How does customer
service impact the competitive dynamics among MVPDs? Is customer
service a factor in subscribers' choices among MVPDs? What other
factors affect consumers' decisions to subscribe to one MVPD rather
than another?
Impact of Regulatory Environment and Barriers to Entry
5. We seek comment on the effect of recent Commission regulatory
actions and their effect on competition. We also seek comment on
Commission actions that have taken place since the Notice was adopted.
To what extent have these actions affected competitive entry into the
video marketplace? We note that a number of states have continued to
enact franchising reform laws since the adoption of the Notice. How
have these state laws facilitated or otherwise changed the prospects
for new entrants into the field? We request information regarding the
impact of new franchising requirements.
Impact of Economic Environment on Video Programming Services
6. Access to Capital and Investment: We seek comment on the impact
of the current economic environment and its effect on access to capital
on the market for the delivery of video programming. How have the
economy, lending environment, and debt structures of media companies
affected broadcasters' and MVPDs' ability to invest in new technologies
and programming services? What effect does the current economic climate
have on broadcasters' operations, especially their ability to provide
local programming? Has the nationwide lack of access to financial
resources slowed down MVPDs' capital investment and deployment of
programming and/or services, including local programming? What impact
will
[[Page 19087]]
financial difficulties have on MVPDs', broadcasters', and programmers'
short-term and long-term economic and strategic decisions?
7. In previous reports, we have observed that cable operators, in
particular, have invested significant capital upgrading their systems
and adding new video and non-video services. Are cable operators and
other MVPDs continuing to invest in system upgrades and service
improvements? What effect has the recent economic climate had on cable
operators' and other MVPDs' investments or plans to provide additional
video and non-video services to their customers?
8. Access to Revenues and Investment: Broadcast stations and
networks, non-broadcast networks, MVPDs, and Internet sites all derive
revenue by selling time or space to advertisers, but some are more
dependent on advertising revenue than others. We seek comment on
whether shifts in advertising shares among media represent permanent,
structural changes within the video distribution industries or
temporary changes due to the cyclical nature of advertising and
challenging economic conditions. How do the shifts impact program
distributors' ability to invest in programming and new technology?
Digital Television
9. Since June 30, 2007, broadcasters have been transitioning from
analog to digital broadcasting formats. In addition, MVPDs have
increased the number of broadcast stations they carry in standard
definition (``SD'') and high-definition (``HD'') formats as well as the
number of non-broadcast networks they carry in HD. The DTV Delay Act,
enacted on February 11, 2009, extended the date for the nationwide
digital television (``DTV'') transition from February 17, 2009, to June
12, 2009. See DTV Delay Act, Pub. L. 111-4, 123 Stat. 112 (2009) (to be
codified at 47 U.S.C. 309 (j)(14) and 337(e)). We seek comment on the
impact of the digital television transition on consumers, broadcast
stations, and MVPDs. What has been the competitive impact on stations
that have already ceased analog broadcasting? To what extent has the
digital transition affected the number of households that subscribe to
MVPDs?
10. How has the availability of national and local programming in
HD formats affected the competitive dynamics between DBS, cable
operators, LECs, and other MVPDs? How do MVPDs package and price HDTV
programming? How many HDTV sets are sold each year and what percentage
of TV set sales do they represent? What percentage of set sales has
built-in ATSC tuners and what percentage is pure monitors? Does the
availability of HDTV programming drive sales of sets, or vice-versa?
11. How many television stations broadcast in HD, and what
percentage of the programming day is offered in HD? Of those, how many
are carried by MVPDs? Are network affiliates more likely to be carried
in HD than unaffiliated stations? With respect to DBS operators, what
percent of the broadcast stations carried in HD in a given market are
carried pursuant to satellite ``must carry'' (carry-one, carry-all)? In
what markets do MVPDs carry all stations in HD and not just those with
major network affiliations? Does the availability of HDTV programming
affect retransmission consent negotiations? We seek data and
information on the non-broadcast networks and broadcast stations that
cable operators offer in high-definition. What effect does the carriage
of HD programming have on the bandwidth capacity of MVPDs? Are there
differences among MVPDs in the quality of HD programming delivered to
consumers? If so, have these differences had an effect on competition?
Is the quality of HD programming an important competitive factor? How
much capacity do MPVDs devote to HDTV programming, either as video-on-
demand (``VOD'') or as linear channels? We seek information about the
extent to which broadcast stations offer multicast streams of digital
programming, the programming broadcasters carry on the multicast
channels, and whether MVPDs carry these channels.
Programming Issues
12. We seek updated data and information about the programming
issues discussed in the Notice, including additional information about
regional sports networks (``RSNs''). To continue to report on trends in
vertical integration, we request information on the number and
ownership of non-broadcast networks by cable operators, other MVPDs,
and broadcasters as of June 2008 and June 2009. How does consolidation
in the MVPD and broadcast markets impact the delivery of video
programming? We also solicit comment on the ability of MVPDs to acquire
specific programming services and the extent to which programming
networks are able to obtain carriage by MVPDs. Has the entry of LECs,
such as Verizon and AT&T, and other overbuilders in certain geographic
markets affected the ability of programming networks to gain and/or
retain carriage on other MVPDs?
Advanced Services: Bundling, HSD, Voice, Telephony, VOD, DVRs, and IPGs
13. In the Notice, we sought information on advanced service
offerings by MVPDs. We seek updated information on the impact of the
bundling of video services with voice and high-speed data services on
competition in the market for the delivery of video programming
services to consumers. In addition, we seek comment on developments
since June 30, 2007, regarding video-on-demand (``VOD'') services,
digital video recorders (``DVRs'') and services, and the role of
interactive program guides (``IPGs'').
14. Bundling, High-Speed Data, and Voice Services: We seek comment
on the extent to which MVPDs are bundling voice and data services with
video services in double, triple, or quadruple play packages and on the
impact of such offerings on competition. We seek information about the
types of services that MVPDs intend to offer using the 700 Megahertz
frequency band.
15. Impact of Video Services on Broadband Deployment: We seek
information on the extent to which the availability of video over the
Internet--through services that require high bandwidth, such as
YouTube, ITunes, and Amazon.com--has stimulated consumer demand for
MVPDs' deployment of ultra-high-speed broadband service, and vice-
versa. Do MVPDs expect to offer tiered high-speed data services (e.g.,
low-priced, slower speed versus higher-priced, faster speed service)?
If so, how would such tiering impact consumers' access to video
programming?
16. Video-on-Demand: We seek updated information on the use of VOD
for video programming distribution. Are programmers using VOD in lieu
of multiplexing their programming networks? If so, has VOD freed up
capacity for new networks, or do MPVDs need higher capacity for VOD?
How much VOD programming is locally originated or concerns local
subject matter? Has the shift in movie release windows affected the
viability of VOD programming?
17. Digital Video Recorders: What percentage of and types of
programming do viewers watch live versus on a time-shifted basis via a
DVR? How has time shifting affected the ability of programmers to
generate advertising revenue? How have new audience measurement metrics
impacted the ability of programming networks to serve niche audiences?
How do trends
[[Page 19088]]
in DVR capabilities impact competition among MVPDs? Have services
unaffiliated with MVPDs such as TiVo experienced difficulty with
obtaining licensing agreements?
18. Interactive Program Guides: As interactive television has
developed, the functionality of electronic programming guides
(``EPGs'') has evolved and they are now more commonly known as
interactive program guides (``IPGs''). What role do IPGs play in
consumers' viewing choices? How does the demise of TV program listings
in newspapers impact the role of IPGs? Are IPGs now the primary source
for viewers to obtain program listings? If so, how does this impact the
market for the delivery of video programming?
Technical Issues
19. In the Notice, we sought information on developments as of June
30, 2007, covering technologies and technical standards developed by
CableLabs, including middleware such as the Open Cable Application
Platform (``OCAP''), CableCARDS, and PacketCable. We also sought
comment on the status of navigation devices and the impact of the
Commission integration ban separating security from non-security
functions in system access devices. In addition, we requested
information about advances in digital broadcasting, home networking,
and content mobility developments as well as the impact of digital
rights management on the deployment of new technologies. We seek
similar information on the status of these technical issues as of June
2008 and June 2009, including analysis of the following developments.
Set-Top Boxes and Technology
20. Technical Standards for MVPDs' Set-Top Boxes: In 2004,
CableLabs initiated Enhanced Television (``ETV'') and the Enhanced
Television Binary Interchange Format (``EBIF'') to allow set-top boxes
already installed in subscribers' households (i.e., ``legacy boxes'')
to receive interactive software and programming. In 2001, CableLabs
introduced OCAP to make it easier to introduce new devices and to speed
the availability of interactive applications to MVPDs' systems. In
January 2008, the cable industry adopted the name ``tru2way'' to brand
and market OCAP products. EBIF and tru2way are complementary middleware
standards to promote interactive television on cable set-top boxes. We
seek updated information on the availability of tru2way-compliant and
EBIF-compliant devices, the merits and drawbacks of each standard, the
number of such devices in use by subscribers, and the types of services
enabled by each middleware standard.
21. We also seek comment on the strategic implications of the
availability of these enhanced services on the state of competition in
the market for delivery of video programming. How will the ability to
offer enhanced advertising and other interactive services impact MVPDs'
ability to compete with each other and with broadcast television
stations for audiences and advertising revenue? How does the
availability of highly-targeted advertising affect MVPDs' and
programmers' ability to offer local and niche programming for
traditionally unserved and underserved audiences?
22. CableCARDs: In 2003, the Commission adopted rules that allow
television sets to be built with ``plug-and-play'' functionality for
one-way digital services. The adopted interface for the separation of
the security elements is commonly referred to as a ``CableCARD.'' Since
our last report, cable operators have developed a multi-stream
CableCARD (i.e., CableCARDs that deliver more than one channel to
subscribers at a time) and are in the process of testing retail two-way
devices equipped with CableCARDs in certain trial markets. We request
information on the status of these trials and the merits of multi-
stream versus single-stream CableCARDs.
Competition Among Navigational Devices
23. Technical Standards for Consumer Electronics: CableLabs has
established a private negotiation process by which individual consumer
electronics manufacturers may develop two-way plug-and-play electronic
devices, including HDTV sets, digital video recorders, mobile phones,
and personal computers that are compatible with cable operators'
technology through tru2way. We request updated information regarding
applications using tru2way.
24. Since June 2007, several consumer electronics manufacturers
have signed memorandums of understanding with CableLabs to implement
OCAP. Has CableLabs's certification process for consumer electronic
devices affected the deployment of two-way, multi-stream CableCARD
devices? How do applications in electronic devices, including
television sets, personal computers, digital video recorders, and
mobile phones, compare with those leased by MVPDs to subscribers? How
many electronic devices currently have multi-stream CableCARDs and
tru2way middleware?
25. Non-CableCARD Separated Security: To promote a competitive
market for set-top boxes, the Commission in 1998 required MVPDs to
separate security in their leased devices and rely on the same
conditional access mechanism that consumer electronics manufacturers
use (frequently referred to as ``common reliance''). In January 2007,
the Commission reiterated that alternatives to CableCARDs that rely
upon a commonly-used interface comply with the rule requiring
separation of security elements from other elements of a set-top box.
The Alliance for Telecommunications and Industry Solutions, CableLabs,
Beyond Broadband Technology, and Widevine Technologies are working to
develop downloadable solutions for separable security. We seek comment
on these and any other downloadable security solutions. Are entities
that are developing these downloadable solutions working with device
manufacturers to ensure compatibility with retail devices? Are they
working with one another to ensure that retail devices will allow for
national portability as well as MVPD-to-MVPD portability?
Other Technical Issues
26. Home Networking and Content Mobility: Home networking allows
consumers to connect multiple devices in the home (e.g., set-top boxes,
television sets, personal computers, and video game consoles). We seek
updated information on the extent to which MVPDs are utilizing or
supporting home networking technologies, such as those proposed by the
High-Definition Audio-Video Network Alliance (``HANA'') or the Digital
Living Network Alliance (``DLNA'').
27. Content Protection and Digital Rights Management: Digital
content protection technology seeks to prevent the unauthorized copying
and redistribution of digital media. We request an update on what
content protection technologies are available or being developed to
protect digital media. How have copyright and digital rights laws,
regulations, or the lack thereof impacted the competitiveness of MVPDs
and their access to programming?
Cable Systems
28. Migration from Analog to Digital Tiers: We request updated
information on MVPDs, including changes in the manner in which video
and non-video services are being packaged and priced. One recent trend
is the migration of cable programming from analog tiers to digital
tiers, or the elimination of analog
[[Page 19089]]
service in favor of all-digital systems. What percentage of cable
subscribers subscribe to analog versus digital packages? What types of
programming have been moved from analog tiers to digital tiers? How
many cable operators have converted their systems to all-digital, and
what percentage of each operator's systems do they represent? Does one
system's decision to go all-digital drive competing systems in the same
market to follow suit? What are the costs and benefits of digital
migration to subscribers? When a system goes all digital, are basic
tier subscribers required to lease or purchase set-top boxes? How does
migration to an all-digital system affect the price of basic cable
service? What effect does the offering of advanced services, such as
DVR, IPG, and VOD, have on cable operators' decisions regarding
increasing the movement of programming from analog to digital tiers or
going all-digital?
29. Switched Digital Video: Traditionally, cable operators have
delivered all programming feeds at the same time to all subscribers.
Switched digital video is a method of delivering programming to
subscribers only when those subscribers actively request that
programming. What is the role of switched digital video in cable
operators' operating strategies? How has the deployment of switched
digital video impacted MVPDs' capacity and offering of programming
services? To what extent has the deployment of switched digital video
been successful? What efficiencies have cable operators realized
through the deployment of switched digital and what challenges do they
face? How does the deployment of switched digital video affect cable
operators' distribution of programming networks? What are the costs and
benefits of switched digital video to consumers?
30. Carriage of Broadcast Stations in Standard and High Definition
Digital Formats: In September 2007, the Commission adopted a Third
Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
requiring cable operators to either (1) deliver must-carry stations'
broadcast digital signals in digital format to all digital cable
subscribers and convert the signals to analog format at their headends
for all subscribers or (2) for all-digital systems, deliver the must-
carry stations' broadcast signals in digital format to all subscribers
in the systems. See Carriage of Digital Broadcast Signals: Amendment to
Part 76 of the Commission Rules, CS Docket No. 98-120, Third Report and
Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC Rcd 21064
(2007). Small cable systems with 552 MHz or less bandwidth that lack
the capacity to carry the additional digital must-carry stations may
request a waiver of the carriage requirement. We seek comment on the
extent to which systems down-convert DTV signals to analog to make them
available to subscribers without the need for a set-top box. In
September 2008, the Commission released a Fourth Report and Order,
which, in part, exempts certain cable systems from the material
degradation requirement to carry broadcast signals in HD format. See
Carriage of Digital Broadcast Signals: Amendment to Part 76 of the
Commission Rules, CS Docket No. 98-120, Fourth Report and Order, 23 FCC
Rcd 13618 (2008). The systems must either 1) have 2,500 or fewer
subscribers and be unaffiliated with a large cable operator, or 2) have
an activated channel capacity of 552 MHz or less. How many systems with
552 MHz or less carry HDTV networks or stations? Is the lack of HD
programming a competitive disadvantage?
Direct-To-Home Satellite Services
31. Direct-to-home satellite services include DBS and C-band. In
addition to information requested in the Notice, we are interested in
how the digital transition has affected competition between DBS and
cable operators in markets where DBS does not offer local-into-local
broadcast television service. How has the availability or lack of
local-into-local service impacted consumers' readiness for the digital
television transition? Do households drop DBS subscriptions in order to
receive DTV programming from another MVPD? We also request information
regarding how broadcast stations deliver their signals to DBS
operators, e.g., over-the-air reception or alternative feeds, and we
seek comment on the extent to which multiple DBS operators share local
reception facilities. The number of subscribers to C-band video service
has been declining in recent years. Does this trend continue? If so, is
C-band still a viable option for multichannel video programming
service?
Other Wireline Service Providers
32. The Notice solicited comments regarding other wireline video
programming distributors, including local exchange carriers, broadband
service providers, open video system operators, and electric and gas
utilities. We seek information on these MVPD services for 2008 and 2009
as well as the following additional information.
33. Local Exchange Carriers: In the 13th Annual Report, we observed
that LECs, most notably Verizon and AT&T, have expanded the areas where
they provide facilities-based video services. What factors determine
whether these companies or other LECs enter the video marketplace? Have
the Commission's revised franchising rules or state franchising laws
had an impact on LEC video services? In addition, several LECs offer
video services through marketing agreements with DBS operators. We
request updated information regarding these agreements as well as the
bundles of services that LECs offer in competition with cable
operators. Do LECs compete on price? If not, why not? Do they offer
differentiated tiers? How does the amount of HD, VOD, and other
programming offered by LECs compare with similar offerings from other
MVPDs? Do LECs provide local programming? Do they offer any programming
comparable to public, educational, and government access (``PEG'')
programming? How does the quality of LECs' customer service compare
with that of other MVPDs? What percentage of new LEC customers come
from other MVPDs versus households relying exclusively on over-the-air
reception? We seek comments on what, if any, unique competitive
advantages LECs have in comparison with other MVPDs.
Broadcast Television Service
34. Over-the-Air-Only Households: Consumers who do not subscribe to
an MVPD service typically rely on over-the-air (``OTA'') reception of
local broadcast television signals. MVPD subscribers may rely on OTA
reception on some of their television sets. How many television
households rely exclusively on OTA reception, and how many MVPD
subscribers rely on OTA reception for at least one television set? Of
those television sets, how many are analog, digital-ready, or connected
to a digital converter box? Some MVPDs are offering introductory
discounts to attract new subscribers from OTA-only households. Is the
digital transition driving such households to subscribe to MVPDs? On
the other hand, is the digital transition causing MVPD subscribers to
drop their service and rely on free, OTA television? Are broadcast-only
households replacing analog sets with digital sets or HDTV sets? Does
the need for consumers to upgrade broadcast antennas to receive DTV
over-the-air in some situations affect consumers' decision to switch
from OTA reception to MVPD subscribership?
35. Multicasting: Multicasting is the process by which multiple
streams of
[[Page 19090]]
digital television programming are transmitted at the same time over a
single 6 MHz broadcast channel. We seek information on the types of
services and content that broadcasters are transmitting using
multicasting. In addition, we seek information on whether multicasting
is limited to large markets, or if stations in small and medium-sized
markets are also using their multicasting capabilities. What types of
multicast programming are available? How much multicast programming is
locally produced or locally focused? To what extent is the provision of
multicast service dependent upon its carriage by cable and other MVPD
operators? In how many markets are cable operators and other MVPDs
carrying broadcasters' multicast programming, and which markets are
they doing so? How has the financial climate and postponement of the
digital television transition impacted broadcasters' roll-out of
multicast networks?
36. Must-Carry and Retransmission Consent: Every three years,
broadcast stations elect whether they want to be carried on cable
systems under must carry or retransmission consent. Similarly,
broadcast stations may elect whether to be carried under must carry or
retransmission consent in markets where DBS operators offer local-into-
local service. The most recent election was on October 1, 2008, for
carriage agreements beginning on January 1, 2009. What types of local
stations receive compensation pursuant to retransmission consent versus
carriage pursuant to must carry? What types of compensation do
broadcasters receive from MVPDs in return for carriage? Are
broadcasters compensated in cash or through in-kind arrangements? To
what extent do broadcast station owners tie carriage of affiliated non-
broadcast networks to carriage of their broadcast signals?
Other Wireless Service Providers
37. Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers: As discussed in the
Notice, major commercial mobile radio service (``CMRS'') providers have
begun offering video services to users of cell phones and other mobile
services. We request updated information on the availability and
deployment of mobile video services offered by CMRS providers as of
June 30, 2008, and June 30, 2009. Specifically, how many mobile
telephone users have access to, and subscribe to, such services? Has
the availability of such services increased and how have subscription
rates changed over time? To what extent are CMRS providers offering
mobile video services over their own spectrum licenses and networks,
and to what extent are they partnering with third parties? We request
information regarding programming agreements between video content
providers and CMRS providers. Do current trends in mobile video suggest
that we should classify CMRS providers that offer video programming as
MVPDs?
38. We also request updated information on video distribution to
wireless devices--including iPods, personal digital assistants, and
portable media players--that are not connected to CMRS networks. To
what extent do consumers use wireless connections, personal computer
sideloading, and other methods to receive video content on wireless
devices? How have the distribution methods and technologies changed
since June 30, 2007? We seek updated information on how video
programmers are re-purposing traditional broadcast and non-broadcast
programming for viewing on these devices, and the extent to which
programmers are creating content specifically for these new devices.
39. What types of programming do broadcasters intend to provide via
mobile digital television? Do they plan to include local news and
emergency broadcasting? What are the advantages of mobile video
provided by broadcasters versus other providers? We also request
information on whether and how video programmers will use new, IP-based
wireless network technologies--such as Worldwide Interoperability for
Microwave Access (``WiMAX'') and Long Term Evolution (``LTE'')--to
deliver mobile video programming. We seek comment on the extent to
which video services offered using these technologies will compete with
those offered by traditional video providers.
40. Wireless Cable Systems: We seek updated information on existing
wireless cable systems and the video and non-video services they offer.
How many wireless cable systems remain, and how many customers do they
serve? Do licensees in these services remain viable competitors in the
market for the delivery of video programming?
41. Private Cable Operators: Private cable operator (``PCO'')
systems, also known as satellite master antenna (``SMATV'') systems,
are video distribution facilities that do not use any public rights-of-
way. In the 13th Annual Report, we reported that PCOs serve a
decreasing number of subscribers, representing less than one percent of
all MVPD subscribers as of June 2006. Has this trend continued into
2008 and 2009? Do PCOs remain viable competitors in the market for the
delivery of video programming?
Web-Based Internet Video
42. Programming Network Delivery via Web Sites: Programmers and
content creators are offering an increasing amount of video programming
over the Internet. How is the availability of traditional broadcast
programming on other outlets affecting the role of broadcast stations
and MVPDs as distributors? How do licensing and copyright issues impact
competition for the distribution of video programming over the
Internet? Has the availability of programming online led to consumers
``cord cutting'' (i.e., cancelling MVPD service subscriptions) or no
longer viewing OTA broadcast television?
43. Direct Streaming of Programming Networks to Consumer
Electronics: In early 2009, consumer electronics manufacturers
announced that they plan to increase the number of television sets and
DVD players that incorporate streaming technology to enable viewers to
watch IP-delivered video. How does the ability to stream video
programming over computers and television sets impact the demand for
MVPD service? We seek information about developments relating to the
distribution of Web-based Internet video.
A. Foreign Markets
44. In previous reports, we have examined foreign markets because
developments in other countries can lend insight into the nature of
competition in the United States and the relative efficiency of market
structures and regulations within our nation. We again seek information
and case studies on video delivery in foreign markets, including the
transition to digital television, the emergence of IPTV as a competitor
in the MVPD market, and the implications of both these trends for
market structure and consumer choices. We also seek information
regarding recent developments in pricing and packaging of programming,
including a la carte offerings and the degree to which consumers can
choose channels in bundles or singly; technological developments;
developments in VoIP; and broadcast, cable, and satellite competition.
We also ask commenters to provide comparisons of the video programming
choices available to consumers between the United States and other
countries. In addition, we seek comment about the impact of global
technical standards on the development of video programming services
and technology within the United States.
[[Page 19091]]
II. Procedural Matters
45. Authority. This Supplemental Notice is issued pursuant to
authority contained in Sections 4(i), 4(j), 403, and 628(g) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 403,
and 548(g).
46. Ex Parte Rules. There are no ex parte or disclosure
requirements applicable to this proceeding pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1204(b)
(1).
47. Comment Information. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may
file comments on the Supplemental Notice of Inquiry, MB Docket No. 07-
269, for 2008 information, on or before May 20, 2009, and reply
comments on or before June 20, 2009. For 2009 information, interested
parties may file comments on or before July 29, 2009, and reply
comments on or before August 28, 2009. 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 (1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.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.
[cir] 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.
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.
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.
[cir] 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.
[cir] 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.
[cir] 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; (2)
Marcia Glauberman, Media Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 2-C264,
Marcia.Glauberman@fcc.gov; and (3) Dana Scherer, Media Bureau, 445 12th
Street, SW., Room 2-C222, Dana.Scherer@fcc.gov.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-9550 Filed 4-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
